Friday, January 27, 2012

Essentialism and Constructivism: How Feminism Uses Them

In the early days of second-wave feminism, otherwise known as the women's lib era of the '60s and '70s, our superfriends the feminists were keen to inform us that there were no basic differences between men and women. They were very serious about this, too. While they grudgingly admitted that male and female anatomy were different, they wanted us to understand that the difference stopped right there. Men and women were only physically different, and that was the end of it.
Their thesis was, to put it simply, that differences in male and female behavior were due to cultural training and nothing more. Such differences, you would say, were merely constructed. Therefore, this school of feminist thinking is known as "constructivism". It is the "nurture" side of the nature-nurture debate.
In opposition was the theory called essentialism, which said that men and women were different in their essence. That is, that they were spiritually or psychologically different for reasons that cultural training could not fully explain.
The feminists had their reasons for insisting on constructivism. Overtly, they wanted to open up domains of life opportunity to the female population -- the job market and the career jungle, for example. To this end, it was important to knock down any rationale for discrimination against women -- and for starters, that meant any biological rationale.
But the feminists had more covert reasons for insisting that the sexes were non-physically indistinguishable. These reasons were rooted in feminist patriarchy theory. The feminist narrative, you see, is that women are "oppressed", and that this state of affairs has persisted for a very long time -- thousands of years, by some estimations. According to the feminists, women were forced, by men, to play certain roles in society -- wife, mother, homemaker, and so on. And that is why the feminists had to adopt constructivism as their working hypothesis. For if men and women were naturally different in their psychology, they would naturally gravitate toward different functions within the body-politic. You wouldn't need to "oppress" anybody into doing this.
And so, essentialism was anathema to the feminists because it would introduce so many doubts and questions into patriarchy theory as to effectively dismantle it.
Finally, the feminists had entirely covert reasons for insisting on constructivism as a working hypothesis. They wished to instill this idea because they wanted to force-integrate men and women not only in work and institutional settings, but in every social space you can imagine. Yet with one exception: if women didn't want men around, they were free to be man-free. Men, however, were not to be permitted male-only space of any significance. Feminism is rife with such double-standards, but I digress.
Thus far the story is simple, but now it gets complicated. However, I will do my best to give you the short version. At a certain stage, the feminists and their leftist cohorts introduced a thing called "gender theory". They shanghaied the grammatical term "gender" and pressed it into the service of constructivist thinking by making it mean the constructed male or female roles in society. Meanwhile, the word "sex" continued to mean biological maleness or femaleness. But with both terms in use, a state of muddled thinking arose in the average person's mind. Gradually, "gender" came to be used indifferently in cases where "sex" was meant. The fact that "sex" is also an abbreviated way of saying "sexual intercourse" gave a boost to this tendency. And to this day, even non-feminist men and women who ought to know better will say "gender" when they mean "sex". They have been duped into internalizing the categories of gender theory and thinking like feminists.
When men and women were forced together into the same social spaces, conflicts based on their difference naturally arose. This is what you might predict when dissimilar behavior idioms run athwart of each other. But rather than acknowledge natural difference, the feminists shifted blame for the conflict onto men, and emphasized the need to culturally reprogram men in order to make them more like women. This led to a predictable escalation of tensions, and whenever men acted ornery about the situation, the feminists would cite their attitude as male intransigence.
The weight of evidence -- folkloric, historic, sociological, anthropological, neurological and so on -- does not favor constructivism as an explanation of sexual behavior differences. Indeed, if I were gambling at the racetrack, I would not hesitate to put my money on the horse called "essentialism". Mind you, I am not disputing that men and women are trained into different cultural roles. However, I cannot buy the idea that such training is the sole point of origin for the apparent differences. I believe the differences are inborn, and that cultural training merely "improves upon nature". If you think of natural sexual difference as a landscape with bumps and hollows, then cultural training is the snowfall which obscures the detail in this landscape while leaving the main contours evident.
Certain old-school feminists, in a grasping-at-straws effort to save constructivism, will acknowledge what I have just described. They will concede that "nature" indeed might play a role in sexual identity, but quickly brush this aside by insisting that training, too, enters into the mix. And then they will build the subsequent conversation around that point alone -- as if it had any real significance. For if the "constructed" part of sexual identity is merely an add-on to what nature has originally set in place, then it is pointless and fatuous to insist that sexual identity is culturally constructed. Indeed, we must enquire why humans would have ordained sex roles at all if nature had not provided a foundation for it.
In fact, if sexual behavior differences arise from nature to any degree, then constructivism -- at least for feminist political purposes -- is done for. You might scrape away the overlay of cultural training, but the natural foundation directly below would always confront you, as if in mockery -- and what would you do about this? And patriarchy theory, which depends upon constructivism, is next up on the chopping block.
As a writer, I will declare my own position. And that is, that I don't personally care which of the two theories, essentialism or constructivism, eventually proves correct -- just so I know what is true. The truth is what matters to me. Right now, as earlier stated, I am betting on essentialism because I think the evidence weighs heavily in its favor.
But however this finally turns out, I will insist that everybody live according to the pattern of consistencies which the outcome logically generates. I will demand that such consistencies be assimilated into the culture with nary a glimmer of hypocrisy or double-standard. Chiefly, I will not allow any form of "code-switching" from constructivism to essentialism or the reverse. If paradigm A is reality, I expect we as a society shall hew to it through all viscissitudes. I do not expect that we shall capriciously adopt paradigm B whenever it is useful for women or seems to put them in a better light -- although that is clearly what feminism wants for women.
For example, if you enjoy snarking on the theme of "men can't multi-task", then you had better make up your mind to live in the essentialist camp, because essentialism is what you are supporting. Or if you avow that women are inherently "more verbal" than men, then you should put your money where your mouth is and verbally vote for essentialism. Or again, if your name is Barbara Jordan, and you declare that women have a capacity for sensitive feeling which men are just not capable of, then you had best declare yourself an essentialist or else retract that statement. Or again, if you are a great booster of the transgendered cause, then you are co-signing with the idea that there is an independent male or female essence which sometimes gets packed into the wrong kind of body. In other words, you are an essentialist and you ought to maintain that position consistently. This could go on and on.
All right. We know that constructivism gained traction early and logged a lot of miles. Partly, that is because it sounded like a cool idea. It sounded groovy and democratic -- just what the utopian zeitgeist called for! So plenty of people signed on and sopped it up.
Yet there is more to constructivism's staying power than all of that, and nature itself provides this "more". Granted the "essential" difference between male and female is difficult to dispute. However, this difference occurs as a statistical average, or if you will, a norm, from which individual men and women sometimes vary. And so we often encounter women who seem, all in all, rather "mannish", and men who seem somewhat "womanish". You will note that the essential polarity of masculine and feminine remains uncompromised. And yet the presence of such natural deviation clouds the issue and furnishes a rationale for constructivist thinking. The deviation makes it seem that constructivism might be true. There is just enough creative ambiguity or wiggle room for constructivism to shoehorn its way in, with the help of bias-confirmation from people who want it to be true anyway.
Now, we know the feminists love to rattle on about luckless folk who feel oppressed by certain behavior norms. Aye, heaven pity the sensitive chap who wants to wear pink shirts. And spare a thought for the girl who wants to take welding classes with the boys. Well so far as the present writer is concerned, they are both welcome to it. They have my blessing. But apart from that, I'll not march down the street carrying placards on their behalf. They are on their own. And if they seek anything special from me, anything "above and beyond", then they had best make a social contract with me, by proving that they are worth something to me.
Very well, the take-away point from all this, is that patriarchy theory sits on a rickety foundation. In order to be true, it needs constructivism. Without constructivism, patriarchy theory is shot to hell. And if patriarchy theory is shot to hell, then the all-important female victim card becomes worthless plastic.
And that brings me to the final subject of my talk, which is: the future.
The feminist regime has profited greatly by the constructivist theory, because that theory makes it possible to suck a lot of blood out of men in a lot of ways. And so with the passage of years, advantages for women have piled up and up. Yet the feminists are still hymning that old refrain about the oppression of women, and they are doing this despite nagging questions about the veracity of it. Well, those nagging questions are set to grow. Long story short: women are now virtually the royal sex in the western world and beyond, and this fact, if it is not yet acidly self-evident to all, is on the way to becoming so. I know a lot of people are blocking that realization, but they can hold out only just so long.
Things are objectively rotten for men. Barring dramatic political action, things will not get better. Nor will things stay the same.
No, life for men will get steadily more rotten because the course of feminist innovation (barring dramatic political action) is bound to continue unchecked. Truly, it can do none other. Feminism is not static; its very being is identical with its being-in-motion, and if motion stops, feminism stops. Full stop.
Therefore, feminism will remain in motion. It will grow and develop as always, on a trajectory that can be roughly predicted. Collateral damage from the war on men will spread into the social ecology, and true to form, the feminists will nail the guilt for their own crime upon the collective back of men. They always do that. But I digress.
At some future date, it will be obvious to everybody that men are getting a raw deal compared to women. The rhetoric of oppression, equality, redistribution and so on, simply will not work any more. And when that day arrives, feminism will need to tack to a very different wind if it wants to stay in business. It will never go out of business if there is any help for that, for if it did, the natural configuration of power between men and women would quickly reassert itself -- men would be men again, and women would be women again, and that would be that.
The development of feminism has always involved turning the screws tighter and tighter on men, and for feminism to keep existing as feminism, it would need to keep busy at this. But there must be a rationale for doing so, otherwise a growing clamor for social reform will stop feminism dead in its tracks -- and I do mean dead.
So constructivism will be shucked like an old skin, and a new essentialist snake will emerge! The only excuse to keep oppressing men would be an essentialist excuse, and so the idea will come into vogue that men and women are essentially different -- and that women are essentially better than men. Some combination of propaganda and bunk science will drill this into the culture, paving the way for anti-male "Nuremburg laws" in one form or another. The alleged inferiority of the male sex will become state doctrine, the necessary traitors will be found to enforce the system, and the third-class citizenship of men will become a legalized and normativized fact of life.
We know that a good many feminists are essentialists already, either in thought or in effect. Indeed, the most radical of the radicals are militantly essentialist -- often Y-chromosome theorists -- and talk seriously about culling the male population. Other radical feminists may still be constructivist but they are not the wave of the feminist future. That future can only be essentialist and, at the extreme, genocidalist.
But will that future ever materialize? Certainly, the logic of feminist evolution dictates such a future and will accomodate none other. However, if you want my honest opinion, I think that a social upheaval will collapse the trajectory. That is my prediction, although I can't predict the details any more than I can predict every ripple on a surging wall of floodwater. Yet I can sense that violence is on the way, and that it requires no help from us. Truly, we can sit beneath a tree and play our balalaikas and, willy-nilly, violence will happen. Knowing this, we are left with one consequential power, and that is the power to make our plans by the light of our knowledge.

The only question is, what plans?

Wednesday, January 25, 2012


ime for another shot of that Higher Spiritual Energy.

(Takes the golden flask down from the cupboard, and quietly uncorks it . . . )

Feminism Spreads Lies Like a Fly Spreads Germs

he accompanying graphic image was created by a pro-male blogger who was inspired by a slogan which I coined recently.

Memes can take many forms, and what you see here is among the most elemental and effective of those forms.

I am posting this graphic image for anybody on the planet who wants to fly away with it and spread it around.

Hell man, you could even print it on T-shirts and coffee mugs. Certainly you can post it on your website. Best of all, you can print it on little squares of paper and leave these in all manner of places where all manner of people will happen upon them.

This is the sort of thing that will land in people's brains, and buzz around there, and never leave!

It will find its way into the general buzz of conversation, too!

I kindly thank St. Estephe, the blog keeper who created this. I am honored to see my words so skillfully combined with pictures, and made ten times more effective by that method.

Go now, and visit the The Unknown History of Misandry -- the source for this and tons more good stuff that you will want to look into:

New Video -- Patriarchy Theory and Female Accountability

Patriarchy theory is the intellectual core of feminism. The purpose of patriarchy theory is to give women a complete pass, as regards moral accountability, in their dealings with men.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Schwyzer and Kimmel are MRAS!

Hugo Schwyzer and Michael Kimmel, professors at Pasadena City College and SUNY Stony Brook, respectively, have
decided to turn their coats, and their backs, on feminism. These erstwhile staunch pillars of what is called the pro-feminist men's movement, will henceforth be contributing their professorial gravitas and savvy to the pro-male men's movement instead. The two have informed me in confidence that they will stay on in their teaching posts as though nothing had changed, yet will, as Kimmel put it to me recently, "work to undermine the feminist agenda by subterfuge, merely pretending to support it while planting mixed messages between the lines."

Schwyzer in particular has confided to me his "complex feelings of guilt" for all of the time he has spent boosting feminism and "filling the minds of young men and women with dreck." He then quoted an obscure passage from the book of Ephesians, which I forgot to make note of, and concluded with the statement that "a great weight has departed from my shoulders -- almost like casting off a worthless bag of rocks!"

As you will surely remark, we have not failed to use the occasion as a photo opportunity. However, I would ask you, my readers, to keep this in confidence. Okay? We don't want to blow Mike and Hugo's cover, see?

A Wicked New Slogan for You. It is Brutal!

This occurred to me in a flash of inspiration today. I grabbed the first scrap of paper I could find and jotted it down:

Feminism spreads lies like a fly spreads germs.

You like it? I thought you would.

So . . . spread it around, and make it part of the "buzz"!

Make Your Voice Heard Re: VAWA Reauthorization

The following, originating from Teri Stoddard, was posted on AVFM. I hope you will take this under consideration. If you are a feminist -- that is to say, a moral idiot -- then I am certain you will not take this under consideration. But if you are a compassionate, empathetic person of conscience, you'll get on it straightway, because there is nothing in the proposed measure that a person like yourself could possibly object to:

From SAVE and AVfM News

Email Subject: The Senate Judiciary Committee Needs Your Calls By Thursday
Title: The Senate Judiciary Committee Needs Your Calls Before Thursday’s Vote On VAWA

Dear (Contact First Name),

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) this coming Thursday at 10am. As you know, we have found many flaws in this bill, which is why we created the Partner Violence Reduction Act (PVRA).

The Partner Violence Reduction Act:

  1. Gives priority to real victims.
  2. Reduces false allegations.
  3. Removes provisions that violate the Constitution.
  4. Protects families.
  5. Provides legal assistance for alleged victim and alleged offender.
  6. Requires third-party accreditation.
  7. Curbs immigration fraud.
  8. Makes the law gender-inclusive.

Today we’d like you to call members on the committee. Tell them to reject VAWA and to support the Partner Violence Reduction Act. More info:

Please contact the members listed below:

Call them once, call them twice, call them several times. Call Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Ask your family, friends, church family, co-workers and neighbors to call. And don’t forget to ask your facebook, twitter and google+ friends too.

It’s now or never, folks!

Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

By the way, if anybody is scoffing at the lack of "activism" in the so-called "MRA movement", then the above is one of numerous examples which ought to make you eat crow.

Actually, there is no such thing as the "MRA movement". The proper term is non-feminist revolution. I, myself, belong to the agitation section of the NFR, but I certainly don't mind lending a hand with the activism from time to time. (Right now, for example. Or the Kevin Driscoll case, for another example.)

The original AVFM post is here:

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Video Redux -- The Root of the Present Evil

Remember that when we talk about the death of the social contract, we aren't just talking about the traditional 'patriarchal' contract between men and women. No, we are talking about the compact which binds together our entire civil polity. This is prediction, and not prescription. It is based upon careful, deliberate study of objective reality.

The future prospect is both frightening, and empowering. But let us overcome fear, and use the power wisely in order to steer clear of the worst. The future is what we make it.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

New Video -- Notes Toward an Efficient Political Worldview - Part 2

Monday, January 16, 2012

Some Stupid Son-of-a-Bitch

Today, I was driving along a remote, forested road. All at once, some stupid son-of-a-bitch pulled his white car very ABRUPTLY out of his private drive, preparing to make a right turn. He pulled forward far enough to block almost all of the right lane directly in my path, and then stopped dead -- apparently planning his next move.

I was forced to stomp hard on my brakes and swerve sharply to the left so that I wouldn't crash into him.

That stupid son-of-a-bitch!

Good thing there was no oncoming traffic in the left lane at that moment.

So. . . how was your day?

Saturday, January 14, 2012

A Little Slice of Life

Where I live, raccoons are quite common. You will often see them dead along the roadways in various states of discomposure. And you will often see them alive as well, nosing around garbage cans and the like. Indeed, they have pretty much lost their natural fear of humans, and when they see you coming they will mostly take their sweet time getting out of the way.

Just the other day, near my home, one of those bandido-masked critters came out of the woods. He wasn't doing much when I saw him, just sort of hanging out and sniffing the dirt at the bottom of the big cedar tree. I watched from my doorway. Right about then, I heard a cherubic young voice. A little girl, maybe four years old, had also seen the raccoon, and she was enchanted.

"Hi, kitty!", the apple-cheeked darling piped up, waving her chubby little arms enthusiastically.

She was not much of a zoologist, this young one, for she had mistaken procyon lotor for felis domesticus. In view of her tender years, such an error was understandable and even charming. But it was fraught with peril. Raccoons, you see, are wild animals. They have wicked sharp teeth, they are known to carry rabies, and you really don't want to get cozy with them. Yet little Goldilocks, waddling toward that glorified, ringtailed rat with squeals of innocent delight, was clearly intent upon so doing.

Now, picture yourself in my place. As a dutiful citizen, I had the choice to act in loco parentis, meaning that I could lay a firm-but-gentle guiding hand upon the little one, and guide her firmly but gently out of harm's way. Yet in view of modern reality, with the rabies of feminism and political correctness coursing through the social bloodstream, it was needful I should have a care for my self-preservation. Surely, the undue imputations that might be drawn should I, a burly adult male, lay hands upon a four-year-old girl, offered a wicked set of fangs in their own right.

It took me all of two seconds to make my decision. I would let the little girl have her rendezvous with the "kitty". So I went back indoors and sat down, and quietly thanked feminism for creating such a dilemma. A moment later the tragic screaming and sobbing reached me faintly through the wall.

Stunned silence in reader-land.

But lift yourself up, gentle reader. The ending to that story never really happened. In reality, the little girl's mother was standing nearby, and she immediately stepped in and dragged the girl to safety, admonishing her sternly: "That's not a kitty! That's a wild animal! Stay away!"

Ah, thank goodness for mothers! Who the hell needs fathers, anyway?

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Radio Program About Saul Alinsky

Thought-provoking stuff here. Worth a careful listen.

Hey Feminist Morons! Here's a New Poster Boy for the "MRA Movement"!

Here, if you will, is a new George Sodini. A new Darren Mack. A new Anders Breivik. A new Perry Manley. Or even a new Ted Bundy, if you dare! Whatever. It matters only that this citizen is a man, and seems to have done some nasty things. And if you are a feminist, the details will mean less to you than the chance to spin a new morality tale about masculinity. Yes, I said spin. For that is just what you intend to do with this, and you know it.

"SAN RAFAEL, Calif.An investigator has testified that a diary detailing sexual assaults of women was found along with posed photographs of two Northern California slaying victims in the home of a suspected serial killer. . . The lead investigator on the case made the disclosure Wednesday during a preliminary hearing for Joseph Naso, a Reno, Nev., man charged in the "Double Initial" killings. . ."

And nowadays especially, when the non-feminist revolution is rearing up on its hindlegs at long last, you'll want to dig ever-so-deeply into this, in search of any dirt that it contains. If you are really, really creative, I'm sure you can prove that this Joseph Naso guy is the quintessential elixir of everything which is not feminism.

And that will help you greatly, because non-feminism is everywhere these days, rising up from the cellar and precipitating from the clouds, and things are starting to look sticky for you. Aren't they?

I'm sure you'll want to pay close heed to the sexual nature of the crimes, and milk that aspect for all it is worth. Because we all know that MRAs and other non-feminists are just a pack of bitter misogynists, holding down the lid on a bubbling cauldron of frustrated sexual rage. We all know that anybody who attacks feminism, or defends men falsely accused of rape, or declares that VAWA is evil, is harboring ulterior motives. So here is your big opportunity to play armpit Dr. Freud in your time-honored way once again, and "make the political personal", and really jab the shit out of these creepy non-feminist people who just want to be left alone by feminism.

I invite feminist readers to log in to the comments, and submit an essay proving that this Joseph Naso fella is really a non-feminist "MRA" who drinks bourbon in the same oak-panelled club room with Angry Harry, Hugh Hefner, Norman Mailer, Benito Mussolini, Glenn Sacks, G.P. Telemann, Pierce Harlan, RockingMrE, Adam Kostakis, Fidelbogen, and Karl (at

If I get enough entries, I will announce the winner and publish it in a post unto itself. Have at it, grrls and grrrly guys! And you too, Schwyzer!

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

I Am An Agitator -- Others Are Doing "Activism"

Here I go again, hammering on timeless messages in order to catch up to all the people who haven't heard them yet.

But really. . . what IS so-called "activism"? Broadly considered, I would say it is any kind of politically goal-directed activity.

And is agitating an activity? Why, certainly. And is it politically goal-directed? Well, it certainly can be.

So I, and many others like me, are "activists" in the broad sense of the term. We are actively agitating -- meaning, actively stirring things up for a politically goal-directed reason. It is all part of politics, and all part of a larger, orchestrated game. Orchestras have fiddlers, bassoonists, trombonists, clarinetists, timpanists -- you name it. So, you don't fault the drummer because he is not a cello player, right? There is just no way that a drum can do what a cello does, or vice-versa. But they both have a vital part to play.

And yes. . there are traditional activist groups in operation, lobbying for men's right, father's rights, family rights and so on. They're out there. And they are doing "activism" as it is customarily understood. What they are NOT doing, in most cases, is aggressively going after feminism specifically -- or at least not by name.

But they are damaging feminism in a different way, by attacking the vital centers of feminism's operative power structure. Yes, even if they don't always mention feminism, they are still undermining it in a practical way. You can see this by the flak they catch -- it means they are over the target.

So finally, we agitators too are "activists", for to score rhetorical points against feminism is indeed, in the larger political frame, "activism". But if you are a stickler for semantics, just understand that activists and agitators have separate but equally important parts in the orchestrated business of collapsing feminism. That is what we ultimately strive to accomplish, and what will ultimately do the greatest good for men and women.

Monday, January 09, 2012

A Dynamic Duo of Videos

The following YouTubes, viewed in conjunction, make such a perfect point-counterpoint that I am bound to post them here. Girlwriteswhat (who is female!) makes it starkly clear to us why Barbarossssssaaaaaaaaa's "misogyny" is rational, justifiable and, given the present state of things, inevitable:

Next, Barbbbaaarrossssaaa's video. I will not second his sour assessment of women, yet I will accept that he is a rational adult who formed his conclusion honestly, and that he is perfectly entitled to his opinion. The present state of the social contract certainly does not obligate me to be a white knight in defense of the Female Collective. So, let Barbarosssaaa speak his mind like a free man:

I trust that these videos have made you say "hmmm", and turned you into a sadder, wiser person.

Sunday, January 08, 2012

Oh What a Friend We Have in Feminism!

Some earnest feminist, out yonder, will watch this video and earnestly demand to know what this has got to do with feminism, and then earnestly make us understand how she deplores what happened to this ill-fated man and does not condone his suffering in any way.

All right. Fair enough. I will credit the earnest feminist for her good faith. And furthermore, I can allow that the evil "girlfiend" in this story might not think of herself as a feminist, or know much about academic feminist theory and suchlike.

So, how DOES all of this pertain to feminism?

Let me answer for the zillionth time, because I'm sure that somebody reading this right now has only recently arrived in these parts and cannot be expected to know it all.

Episodes like this are happening a lot more nowadays because feminist social innovation has generated a culture that naturally gives rise to such things. Feminism has empowered women to act the way this woman has acted, and to get away with it.

So that even if this woman is not personally a "feminist", she is a disease vector of feminist influence in society, helping to spread the consequences of feminist innovation by inflicting harm upon a man. Note how the police department "always took her side, even when they had no evidence to back up her story." That is exactly how the feminists want it to be, because feminist patriarchy theory and feminist anti-male law has taught police officers and criminal justice people to view MEN, sight unseen, as "primary aggressors".

Well it looks like the wheels of justice eventually turned in this particular man's favor, but that only proves that Perfect Feminism is not YET in effect. But they're working on it. Rest assured, they're working on it.

And so, earnest feminist, now you know what this has got to do with feminism. So my question to you is: why do you insist on calling yourself a feminist?

Really, what is your excuse?

For when you stick the word "feminist" to yourself, you are linking your good name to such injustice as this, and to a long list of other things which are very, very nasty indeed!

Your best plan is to stop calling yourself a feminist. Non-feminist people won't cut you any slack; they will not have the patience to hear your mewling lectures about "what feminism really means". Nor should they be required to do so. They can see perfectly well what feminism is, so kindly don't insult their intelligence. YOU are the one who doesn't know what feminism is, and THEY are the ones who will set you straight. Boy, will they ever set you straight!

So do yourself a favor, and do us all a favor.


Wednesday, January 04, 2012

What is "Social Marketing"?

Another piece of the puzzle; another buzz word you'll hear buzzing around from time to time -- especially if you are delving into the same sociopolitical darksides that I am:

I would recommend studying that Wikipedia article slowly and thoughtfully, and making the information a part of your conceptual knowledge base.