The blogger Fidelbogen likes to think of himself as some sort of grand theoretician of “counter-feminist” thinking. Which means that his posts are usually far too long and ponderous to read, much less to write about. His ideas – at least judging from the few posts of his I’ve had the patience to wade through — are really not much more advanced than your typical MRA; he’s just much more pretentious (and long-winded) about it.
He is, in other words, the sort of guy who could take 3000 words to explain the rather basic MRA notion that women control men with their vaginas.
I mean that quite literally. Our excitable MGTOWer friend MarkyMark recently drew his readers’ attention to a 5-year-old post by Fidelbogen with the enigmatic title “Ideas Which Go Against the Grain,” which offers, yep, a 3000-word précis of the evils of pussy power. Perhaps against my better judgement, I’ve decided to give it a detailed look. Strap in!
I’ll give him credit for one thing: despite his vague title, Fidelbogen states his thesis quite plainly at the start:
Female sexuality is raised high upon an altar like a golden calf. Male sexuality is looked upon as a ratty old kitchen chair with a cracked vinyl seat, under suspicion of mildew.
Well, ok, not the very start. Right about here:
This disparity, this imbalance, this . . . . inequality, accounts for most of women’s power over men. By extension, it accounts for a great deal of feminism’s leverage in the realm of gender politics.
In other words: vagina=power.
I leave it to the poets to wax lyrical about the mysteries of the eternal feminine, and to the psychoanalytic priesthood to plumb its shadowy depths. As a political tactician and theorist, it is my cold-blooded task merely to figure out how the world works, blabbity blabbity bloo.
Ok, those last three words are my paraphrase of his argument. Focus, Fidelbogen, focus!
The higher valuation assigned to female sexuality generates a seller’s market for women in the so-called game of love. That is how the world works; women do not queue or cluster in quest of men’s favors. No, it is nearly always men who act this way around women.
And this leads to, yep, the dreaded Pussy Cartel:
Deprived of euphemism, the case is this: women have cornered the market on sexual intercourse, and are able to dictate the price and the accompanying politics much as OPEC might set the terms for oil. …
Understand, that the higher valuation of female sexuality translates into both female power and loss of male power. Since female supremacy is feminism’s driving ambition, it makes sense that the women’s movement has undertaken to siphon power away from men using every siphon hose imaginable.
Normally, I would assume this last bit was some kind of sniggering reference to blowjobs. As Fidelbogen seems to be utterly without a sense of humor, I have to assume it’s merely a belabored metaphor.
So how do the evil feminists siphon away male power? By driving along some sort of road:
Certain lanes, deeply rutted by age-old usage, serve handily along feminism’s route to power.
So after siphoning their way down this road, we (and the evil feminists) arrive at what I’ll call (to keep Fidelbogen’s metaphor going) “Courtship Lane.”
The word “courtship” is revealing. Men are the “courtiers”, which is to say lackeys or sycophants who wait upon the pleasure of their “lord”. In courtship, more often than otherwise, women hold all the cards. Feminists, being women, are well aware of this. But they are also aware that the realm of courtship, while being women’s greatest zone of power over men, is likewise a critical link in the chain of power which binds men specifically to the designs of feminist domination.
After a bit of empty rhetoric, Prof. F continues:
Most women are aware of their superior sexual bargaining power. And many women have been politicized to some degree (more or less) by feminist ideology. This latter group will most certainly carry their politicized outlook into the sexual bargaining arena, and in their minds both feminist ideology and the knowledge of their age-old power will meld together into a troublesome sort of hybrid entity.
Fidelbogen, alas, does not take the opportunity to name this dastardly “hybrid entity.” Let’s just call it THE FEMIGINA!! (In all caps, with two exclamation points.)
At this point, Prof. F loses what little steam his argument has, and begins prattling about this and that and the evils of feminism. I will attempt to convey the gist of it with the following excerpts. In order to truly capture the flavor of it, I will replace the traditional ellipses – used to indicate excised material – with the phrase “blabbity blabbity.”
Blabbity blabbity to gauge the extent of feminist indoctrination among the female population would be like measuring the spread of a gaseous substance with a rubber band. Blabbity blabbity [f]eminism has blabbity blabbity secured a tremendous power over men by means of a momentous bio-political conjunction. Blabbity moral corona of the ideology blabbity female noosphere blabbity blabbity feminist-tinted spectacles blabbity blabbity the path lies clear before us.
And then he comes to his point:
Men should cease to value female sexuality beyond a certain fixed rate. Once the cost exceeds this rate, the value should fall to zero—leaving the purveyors in their deserted market stall.
Yep. That’s right. He’s talking about what we here on Man Boobz know as the Cock Blockade.
Blabbity blabbity it would go against nature blabbity blabbity laborious gritting of teeth. Blabbity blabbity supremely human accomplishment. Blabbity blabbity we are more than simply animals.
And he comes to another point:
Devaluation of female sexuality would alter the balance of power between the sexes. There would come a point where a man, any man, could make the personal choice to cast loose from women altogether—in all but the peripheral aspects of his life.
Blabbity blabbity men would need to cut each other some slack blabbity blabbity stop competing with other men in the customary arena where female flesh is the prize. Blabbity blabbity. The question “are ya getting any?”, along with the adolescent mindset it signals, would be out of place in this altered scheme of things.
And this would put the ladies in their place – standing lonely in their vagina stalls, gamely trying to interest men in their now worthless vaginas.
Women would be the courtiers, the ones who queue and cluster. Deny women their fundamental age-old power, and feminism would find itself reeling in shock as though from a serious blood loss. The best way for men to free themselves from the boa-constrictor grip of feminism is to free themselves from the power of women.
So now I have the image of lady boa-constrictors with head wounds standing in a line, displaying their boa-constrictor vaginas with a sort of desperate hopefulness to the wholly uninterested men who pass by.
After a good deal of blathering so tedious it’s not even worth quoting in part, Fidelbogen begins to ponder the power of “no.”
[M]en must play hard to get. They must learn to exercise the very same option which has historically been the province of women, namely, the power to say NO.
Saying no lies coiled at the very heart of playing hard to get. Saying no signifies a withdrawal which generates a vacuum along its line of retreat, and this vacuum by its draft draws the other into a pursuit by default.
I feel a bit of a breeze myself, but I think that’s just because Prof. F is talking a lot of wind.
Let’s move from breezes to earthquakes:
The changes I am discussing here would amount to a tectonic realignment of unquestionably world-historic magnitude. An inversion of the Victorian pedestal.
The old way of doing things, Prof. F tells us,
I have decided to call it the pussy paradigm—a somewhat vulgar expression to be sure, but it has the common touch!
Ironically, the common touch is something hetero dudes will have to become masters at if they swear off the ladies. Prof. F continues:
So, this pussy paradigm belongs in the category of things which predate feminism’s arrival in the world. And when the feminists got here, they saw in a flash where their advantage lay, and they closed in, and they threw a harness around it.
They threw a harness around a paradigm?
The heart of feminism is female supremacism, and the heart of female supremacism is the pussy paradigm. Remember this if you remember nothing else.
So what does Prof. F call his pussy-optional way of doing things? The “optionality paradigm.” That is, dudes can have sex with women or not, whatever they want, and shouldn’t pressure one another to score with the ladies. (I’m not quite sure how, in Professor F’s economic model, the price of pussy can be reduced to zero if some dudes are still interested in it, but I confess that I only sort of skimmed that bit of his post. Life is short, and Fidelbogen’s posts are long.)
More blabbity blabbity:
The future, in theory, should see a migration of the optionality paradigm toward the center of the map within hetero-normative male culture, along with a corresponding displacement of the pussy paradigm toward the perimeter. This would exactly reverse the present disposition of forces. The optionality paradigm would, at that point, become the ruling paradigm.
After reading this turgid turd of a paragraph , I decided to cut my losses and skip directly to Professor F’s grand conclusion. Which turns out to be neither grand nor much of a conclusion:
My endeavor in writing has been to flesh it out somewhat. To write about it is to give it a form, to make the inchoate choate, to fashion an anchor of words that can hold things usefully in place so we can discuss them, if need be, with a view toward implementation and concrete action. The time to draft contingency plans is now. Put these ideas in your thinking cap and ponder their utility.
Even better, put them in a small bag, weigh it down with rocks, and toss it into the nearest large body of water.
Jesus, this turned into a long post. Still, it’s only about half the length of Prof. F’s original.
And yes, those links also gave the discussions she posted in, so they weren’t out of context. Just godawful.
PFKAelizabeth, I’m familiar with her oeuvre, I just don’t believe in the 11th Commandment in feminism.
*ignores the whole Ginmar business*
NWO, honey, darling, sweetheart, “having had thirty sex partners” does not mean you use men as sex toys, any more than playing music with thirty people means you use other people as synthesizers. There are virgins who objectify people and sluts who treat everyone as a human being.
And Molly has never said she accepted anything from her sex partners. Even if she did, I’m pretty sure that as a grown-up person in grown-up relationships, she gives things to her partners too. In normal person relationships, you don’t trade sex for shinies; it’s more like “hey, want to come over and fuck and borrow my comics?” “Sure, I’ll bring the pizza.”
I’m interested to learn that “loyal” apparently means not devotion or sticking with your partner through any troubles or helping your partner achieve their best or being fully willing to rip into shreds anyone who hurts them, but simply not sticking your tongue in the mouth of anyone else. There are a lot of people who can manage the latter but fail utterly at the first.
Also, some women are sexually faithful because they are monogamous, for fuck’s sake. If you date cheating bastards, that’s your own business, but don’t hold it against an entire gender.
I do see a lot of gold-digging when it comes to initiating relationships, which is kind of irritating. It seems to me that a lot of the time, male sexuality is about sex (which is why it is objectifying) and female sexuality is about fringe benefits (which is why it is mercenary). And of course MGTOW won’t work because men are disposable and fungible, meaning a man who qualifies will always be available to fill a gap left by the unqualified. PUAs are right that only by GETTING sex, changing a “No” to a “Yes”, can the shortfall between the innate desires of the two sexes (in aggregate) be dealt with. Men who are chased are at the very top (Princes William and Harry) and very bottom (corner crack dealer) of the scale, sometimes a particular subculture can confer special status on one man (club owners and promoters) but the vast majority have to learn to initiate and seduce with no material, positional, or physical-appearance-based advantages. (They may, however, have behavioral advantages.) And nerd harems do not necessarily lead to a valid generalization, as I am sure my Ivy League gold-diggers data point will be equally decried.
I really do have a problem in that all my relationships have been heavily male-initiated and -led, meaning my partners have never let me relax and NOT perform as a workhorse, initiator of all touching and intimacy, etc, and I have a bit of a grumpy view. And I can vouch that Holly is not going to be getting with me, or even find me appealing, anytime soon.
Ozy: I don’t even want to know what NWO would say about my sexual history.
I also can’t really take any critique of another’s sexual morals from NWO seriously. This is a man who says 14 year olds come on to him, and they deserve to have someone fuck them because of it.
If I didn’t know other Christians, I’d be tempted to despair of the religion entirely.
NWOslave wrote, “My recent ‘moderation’ is proof of the duplicity of this site and your behavior. I’m banned for being “mean” to Molly Ren. She openly admits to sleeping with at least 30 men and you praise her for it. So she not only uses men for sex, but profit as well. I find it highly unlikely she has never ‘accepted’ drinks, dinners, vacations, some type of monetary gain.”
Wow, how did I miss this last night?
I’m kind of amazed that NWO sees me as living a glamorous life because I *so* do not. The only free food I’ve gotten on a regular basis was from food stamps (though I guess to NWOslave that might amount to the same thing.) Most “vacations” have been when I’ve saved up enough money to take the Chinatown bus to NYC for a couple of days, not because someone I was sleeping with decided to shower me with their expendable income. No wonder he’s bitter if he imagines my life is one constant shower of free stuff, instead of the near-constant state of horny it usually is. 😛
But I thought all we had to as women according to NWO was cry and we’d get food and all sorts of stuff. Now we gotta put out, too?
“But I thought all we had to as women according to NWO was cry and we’d get food and all sorts of stuff. Now we gotta put out, too?”
What’s even more interesting was that if I *did* charge, or at least star in porn, I’d have an even bigger online presence than I already *do*. I’d be taking model shots and hobnobbing with Jiz Lee and Buck Angel and trying to win AVN awards.
I don’t think NWOslave has ever actually considered how hard it is to make money just from sex, what with it being illegal most places and the physical standards you have to meet being so high. Dinner and a movie ain’t enough when you gotta pay the rent!
Because the rent is too damn high!
Okay, NWO, you know what? We’re both about to be on moderation, because I’m going to call you on this bullshit right now and I’m pretty sure I’m going to break several of David’s rules in the process. So here goes: (David, do what you feel is right)
This assertion of yours –what I’ve quoted above- is complete and total bullshit; utter, utter fuckery. You are a liar who couldn’t manage to maintain intellectual consistency or basic coherence if there was a gun pointed at your head. And what is up with the scare quotes and your pathetic dancing around the mulberry bush of what you actually said? You called a poster a whore; you referred to her as a “fuckhole with a pulse.” Own that shit you spineless hypocrite. Are you afraid? I bet you are. I bet you are terrified of being banned from one of the last places online that will let you spout your impotent, idiotic diatribes.
You have zero evidence –ZERO fucking evidence- that she has ever used men for monetary gain. None. Zilch. You made it up. She never said anything about using men for money, or monetary benefits. She never referred to the men she’s had sex with as less than human.
See, again, right here? This is you spewing the repugnant bile of your soul all over the rest of us. This is what is meant by projection. This is what happens when your life is reduced to a bitter, miserable, sham of an existence and rather than face up to it, you choose to point fingers and accuse others of taking what you think you’re entitled to.
You know why you called her a whore? Because you only have sex with prostitutes* and you cannot conceive of any woman having sex for any reason other than money or coercion. I’d bet my next consulting fee that you can’t remember the last time a woman touched you without going through the rates up front. You’re also a narcisstic gas bag, impervious to both logic and reality. Naturally, the fact that other men have sex without paying for it cannot penetrate the dung and mud made adobe shield that houses that shriveled up mushroom you call a brain.
Nothing, I mean nothing, chaps my ass like some dude who decides that because he only has sex with prostitutes, every woman who has sex he disapproves of (like somebody died and made you king shit of fuck mountain and we should give a rat’s ass crack what you approve of) is a “whore.” And you are one of the most egregious examples of this type of thinking I have ever seen.
* I feel that it’s important to state that, while my ideas about sex work are a bit complicated, I do not intend to impugn nor be dismissive of sex workers. The term “sex work” encompasses a wide variety of occupations and practices and levels of agency. But it’s a discussion for an appropriate thread or the forums.
Of course you do. You’re dumb as a bag of hair, NWO but even you recognize that the only kind of woman who would stay with you would be one who couldn’t earn a living or drive a car. You want a child because you think you’d be able to tell her what to do, control whether or not she has access to birth control and that she would have a “guaranteed virtue” the better to placate your raging insecurity. You want a child because you think you’d have a wife that you could father, essentially fulfilling both of the roles you feel are missing in your life. The mother/child that feminism –not, heaven’s no, your own human failures- have kept from you.
Let me tell you something true as snow and crocus: Even if you could manage to get some Eastern European to sell you his 14 year old daughter, she’d leave you. She’d leave you as soon as she could.
No one owes you a child you fucking titty baby. It has nothing to do with your rights, or lack thereof, as a man. No one has a “right to reproduce” you pug-ignorant half-wit. If a woman cannot conceive and carry a child then she has no rights to children either. Even people who do have biological children can lose their parental rights. You cannot conceive a carry a child. And, no, I’m not even remotely sorry that you can’t force a woman to do it for you. And yes, some woman you dated, way back in the 80s (long before you let delusion take over your life) may have terminated a pregnancy. That could’ve happened. But since you can’t carry a baby in your nonexistant womb, if that was her decision then it was also her right. And you know what, a woman could’ve chosen to terminate her pregnancy back in the 40s or 50s, as well.
Has it ever occurred to you that if you’d been different maybe a woman would’ve loved you enough to want to start a family with you? That if you’d had the courage to seek out a woman who agreed with you on the nature of family and marriage your life might have turned out differently? That if you’d had the “juice” you might have attracted a woman who could at least pretend. Or did you just head directly towards this series of hypothetical and increasingly melodramatic suppositions?
“Feminism! Stole! My!! Children!!!!”
Christ, I cannot imagine the adrenaline and relief induced shakes that must have overcome the women who told you “no”. What a bullet they dodged. You have almost none of the traits that can make a man a good father but, whoa nelly, do you have a surplus of the bad ones.
Yeah. Feminism is the reason, you don’t have children. Sure, you’re a miserable, vile, bigot who hasn’t accomplished much of anything except cobbling together a view of the world based on the rantings of a handful of crackpots, and posting lies about the stolen accomplishments of your manly-man brain. But feminism is why you don’t have the wife and children you feel you deserve.
Feminism. And communism, and the Rothschilds, and affirmative action and Title IX, and VAWA, and lizard people, and the illuminati and any and every other crutch you use to keep from looking at yourself in the mirror.
Wow, I actually came here for the funny MRA quotes but this place has gotten pretty nasty with the personal attacks lately. Or is it always like this in the comments?
Yeah, well, call a poster a “whore” and a “fucktoy with a pulse” and then whine about being put on moderation, some people are bound to get their dander up.
Also, block quote fail.
Bravo, Nobinayamu.
Can I borrow you next time I have a difficult asshole on my hands at work?
Sure. I also do bar/bat mitzvahs. And I kill at funerals.
Hengist: There’s a dichotomy between, “gotten pretty nasty with the personal attacks lately”, and the question, “Has it always been like this.”
So, what’s your actual point.
Why so defensive? My point was to say that it looks like the comments section has gotten nasty lately, unless it’s always been like this. I’m not sure how else to say that.
For the record, whatever NWO may have said, I can’t personally condone the nastiness of nobinayamu’s posts. Maybe if telling men that they’re losers no woman would ever want wasn’t such a common tactic used to silence and shame men, but even then… it’s one thing to stand up to a bully, but if you keep kicking him after he’s down while your friends cheer you on, it gets a little nauseating, sorry.
So many levels of fail.
NWO more than had coming. He has said, and said recently, some truly vile things to others.
funny it sure sounds emotionally abusive….
@nobinayamu
*jawdrop* *Sighs*
You stepped to far Nobinayamu but I know why you are pissed. >_> You might want to cool off a bit.
Hengist, I’m not telling “men” that they’re losers no woman would want. I’m telling NWO that he’s a loser no woman would want. It’s part of an ongoing dialogue between me and him. And while I can understand that it bothers you, I don’t really care.
I don’t like seeing a poster lied about and called a “whore.” I don’t like being told that women are whorish by our natures. I don’t like being told that women bring sexual assault upon ourselves by having the temerity to be out in public dressed in less than a gunny sack. I don’t like having links to pre-pubescent girls in swimsuits at the beach, posted as an example of women’s immodesty.
I don’t like being told that the differences between men and women amount to a biological inferiority in the brains of women and the the problems between the sexes would disappear if women would just accept their place in the home. And I don’t much care for women who do choose to be stay-at-home wives and mothers being told that there’s nothing hard about what they do because they can do it “in their pajamas”.
I could post dozens and dozens of even more repulsive things that NWO has said, lo these many months. But I’m not interested, right now, in going back through the archives and linking to them all. And since you didn’t read them, feel free to cast me as the villainess feminist using “shaming language.” Not a fuck is given.
Oh yay. First Hengist mansplained to us all, at least twice, that the reason for the dudebro assholery being decried over in the “ugliness on reddit” post was not actually “nothing” but in fact, the zombie makeup issue. A point which certainly no one else had already covered, and certainly not the owner of this very blog, and certainly not in the very post Hengist was commenting on.
And now he wants to concern troll.
What you did there, Hengist…I see it.
NWO deserved everything he got and then some and frankly I would be pretty surprised if anyone around here cares what you think is right.
jumbofish, I acknowledged at the start of my comment(s) that I fully expected to be put on moderation for breaking the rules. I’m aware of every rule I’ve broken. I’m not sorry.
And, for the record, I’m not enraged. I’m tired.