Categories
antifeminism cock blockade crackpottery men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW MGTOW paradox misogyny MRA oppressed men pussy cartel sex vaginas

Bla bla pussy cartel bla bla cock blockade

Don't put the pussy on a pedestal. Unless it's this pussy.

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.

Go your own way!

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.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

482 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
katz
9 years ago

The non-feminist world is a big place, and its conclusions are no doubt many. But I do not doubt its capacity to draw conclusions in whatever form. Or its inherent right to do so.

He’s really not trying to say anything, is he?

Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

The non-feminist world is a big place, and its conclusions are no doubt many. But I do not doubt its capacity to draw conclusions in whatever form. Or its inherent right to do so.
This is the biggest non-statement I’ve ever seen.

I really wish you’d add some logic and debate texts to the reading lists.

I’m still waiting for the explanation of how feminists can not know what feminism is. If I’m doing feminism wrong, and almost every other feminist is doing it wrong, then maybe we could just call this thing we’re doing “feminism” and call it good?

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

Shorter fidelbogen: blabbity blabbity bloo.

mediumdave
9 years ago

No, FB, this is not a matter of taste. You are using overheated, pseudo-intellectual language to disguise the underlying poverty of your thoughts. And BTW, you are not succeeding… the flimsiness of your logic and the pig-blind ignorance of your worldview are painfully obvious to everyone here (just for starters).

cynickal
cynickal
9 years ago

Yo, cynickal. Funny you should say that, because I’ve just been thinking I for one would LOVE to meet you in person. Exchange views, as it were. See if you’d be as brave and snarky as you are on the internet.

I’m in Seattle. Let me know when you’re planning on heading up. I’ll set an afternoon aside. Or let me know where you live, I have a friend in the airline industry. I’ll be happy to come visit.
I’ve had this offer up more than once.

I’m not sure exactly which statement you are referring to. If it’s my first one, then you should take it as a ‘heads up’, because it’s a mighty common (and rapidly growing) attitude among many people. Perhaps you are not aware of that?

Being a douche? Yeah, I notice it’s fairly common.
Especially on the internet where there’s little to no reprecussions.

katz
9 years ago

The world is a big place, and there are many kinds of toast in it, but I do not doubt the possibility of spreading jam on all of them. Therefore you are wrong.

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

“I’ve read a great deal of Melville. That doesn’t make you any less of a dick.”

I never meant to imply that your reading of Melville makes me “less of a dick”. Sorry if I gave that impression. 😉

And no, I didn’t come here to tell anybody any such thing. I just came here. . . and THEN I got the impulse to write!

You (all) have a thin skin, don’t you? Interesting, that. . .

cynickal
cynickal
9 years ago

(Sigh…) Sometimes I wish I were actually as smart as most the posters here.
Sadly, I take the Jager voice, because I’m not really that socially adept and tend to act rather than think.
I’d really like to be able to take the high road.
Vhy can’t hy be de schmoot guy?

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

“Being a douche? Yeah, I notice it’s fairly common.
Especially on the internet where there’s little to no reprecussions.”

Actually no. It was a serious statement. If you wanna call it douchery, I reckon that’s your “issue”. You have a low threshhold for such things, don’t ya?

Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

Okay, so Fidelbogen is just Brandon with a thesaurus. “I don’t know or care what we’re talking about, but I’m very smart and important so I’m right. …about something.”

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

“The world is a big place, and there are many kinds of toast in it, but I do not doubt the possibility of spreading jam on all of them. Therefore you are wrong.”

Dude! i LOVE meaningless mind-twisters, and that one’s a gem! Mind if I steal it some time?

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

“Okay, so Fidelbogen is just Brandon with a thesaurus. “I don’t know or care what we’re talking about, but I’m very smart and important so I’m right. …about something.”

Actually. . . I do not own a thesaurus. Believe it or not.

Why? Because I don’t need one. Hey, it’s just a fact.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

Whoa. Whatever else he may have been, as a writer Melville was incredibly readable. It’s often over looked because so much of his work is now classic and often “assigned reading” at the high school level. There was nothing “turgid” about Melville’s prose; Moby Dick is a great read.

The non-feminist world is a big place, and its conclusions are no doubt many. But I do not doubt its capacity to draw conclusions in whatever form. Or its inherent right to do so.

That is… an interesting deflection. A poster named chuckeedee used to attempt something very similar but less transparent. Let’s try this, you said that “the rest of the world can see perfectly well what feminism is, and draw its own conclusions.” As a statement this is both true and fairly meaningless. For it to have any substance and be more than just some sort of anti-feminist “filler” it needs some sort of parameters.

How are you defining “the rest of the world”? Is it simply the world outside of feminism? Is it specifically the parts of the world that are anti-feminist? What about when both exist simultaneously, like here in the U.S.? Are you talking about the world online? Are you referring to the actual earth and water globe?

I never suggested that the rest of the world was incapable of drawing its own conclusions about feminism or that it had no right to do so. That part of what you wrote is a bit of a non sequitur. But, you know, you created a comparison and I’m asking you for the basis of that comparison the better to understand your point. I’m not asking you if there is a non-feminist world or how big it is. I’m asking you where/what “… the rest of the world…” is and what conclusions its drawn. You’ve implied that you know.

Please share.

cynickal
cynickal
9 years ago

You (all) have a thin skin, don’t you? Interesting, that. . .

You call it being “thin skinned”, we call it “not putting up with your shit.”

I never meant to imply that your reading of Melville makes me “less of a dick”. Sorry if I gave that impression.

Good to see you never thought about being less of a dick.
Saves us the time of having to get bored with your tediously overwrought prose and gets us straight to mocking you.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=322237

cynickal
cynickal
9 years ago

Actually no. It was a serious statement. If you wanna call it douchery, I reckon that’s your “issue”. You have a low threshhold for such things, don’t ya?

Yes, I do have a low threshhold for douchery. When someone comes in as acts like a douche I tend to react to the douchiness. You come and are “inspired” to be a douche and then you project “issues” on other because they don’t put up with your bullshit.

You’ve addressed no topics, contributed no insight and imagined yourself more savy and worldly than people you don’t even know.

It’s a trifecta of doucheitude.

katz
9 years ago

And no, I didn’t come here to tell anybody any such thing. I just came here. . . and THEN I got the impulse to write!

Actually. . . I do not own a thesaurus. Believe it or not.

Why? Because I don’t need one. Hey, it’s just a fact.

He’s just a THASF-style narcissist troll. He doesn’t actually have any opinions or beliefs, he just wants to talk about himself and his Melville-reading, thesaurus-not-owning ways.

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

“I’m asking you where/what “… the rest of the world…” is and what conclusions its drawn. You’ve implied that you know.”

Rather call it non-feminist filler (than “anti”).

But I should have made it clear that “rest of the world” means whatever is exclusive of feminism. Yeah, it exists. Clear out to the furthest quasar, if you wanna push it that far. In human terms, it means anybody who looks you in the eye and says “I am not a feminist”. He/she will share his/her conclusions if so inclined. If not so inclined, he/she may go in peace.

Oh and yes…Melville’s a good read. I first tried to tackle Moby Dick at age nine, and I got about as far as page 120.

KathleenB
KathleenB
9 years ago

TB: Once again, you are coming into a feminist space, where most commentors are feminists and highly educated one at that, and expecting your pre-freshman logic to do anything but amuse us. Also known as walking into someone else’s house and shitting on their rugs. You’re being an asshole and expect not to get called on it? Here, of all places?

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

@Cynickal: Sigh. My statement was a serious one, as I stated.

@Katz: You brought up the thesaurus, and I simply corrected you as a point of information. but I guess you don’t appreciate that.

If you had never mentioned thesauri, then I would never have mentioned that I didn’t own one.

So, I am damned if I own a thesaurus and damned if I don’t….eh?

Oh… and I mentioned Melville (and Carlyle) also as points of information. Stay on track, okay?

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

“. . .pre-freshman logic. . .

Whatever that means. Snootiness doesn’t look good on you.

Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

Whether you own a thesaurus was not the pertinent part of my comment.

(I don’t own a thesaurus either! I’m a special little fucker.)

The pertinent part was whether you had anything at all to say other than “I’m so smart and I’m so right, even though I’m painfully unclear about what I’m being right about.

KathleenB
KathleenB
9 years ago

FB: You don’t know shit about what looks good on me. And if you can’t figure out the ‘coded’ insult in there, I’m sure as fuck not going to help you.

KathleenB
KathleenB
9 years ago

And, hey, way to fail to address any of my salient points!

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

“The pertinent part was whether you had anything at all to say other than…”

Unfortunately, whatever first set this in motion has gone long astern in the backwash. What with people talking about thesauri and other such dreck. . .

KathleenB
KathleenB
9 years ago

Then pay some fucking attention, FB. It shouldn’t be too hard for your big, manly brain to track multiple conversations at once, especially when you can go back and read them.

cynickal
cynickal
9 years ago

@Cynickal: Sigh. My statement was a serious one, as I stated.

Do you mean this statement?

They don’t seem to realize just how small their world is,
how big the outer world is, and how tedious and bizarre they sound to the rest of us.

You mean the “feminist world” where we believe that women are actual people, with life experiences?
That sounds bizarre and tedious to you?

They are strong, snarky and cocky only among their own kind in their mutual admiration cavern, but turn them loose in a more culturally diverse environment which doesn’t reciprocate their reactions (or their jargons), and they are callow weaklings.

Really? So you’ll meet me for drinks in Seattle? I’m usually at the Barca bar, 11th and Pike on Thursdays between 5 and 730.

If only they could see themselves as others see them.

You mean as property to be owned? Or as one previous poster comment “a fuck toy with a pulse”

The trouble with most feminists, I conclude, is that they don’t know shit about feminism.

Yes, only men have the brain capacity to understand what feminism is, and if a man says “bitches don’t know shit about feminism” then your girly brains just have to accept that.

Point being, that they have no privileged authority to self-define — the rest of the world can see perfectly well what feminism is, and draw its own conclusions.

Kind of like how I drew the conclusion that you are a douche with limited thinking skills and even less reading comprehension?
You’re not allowed to self-define, douche.

cynickal
cynickal
9 years ago

Crap, blockquote fail again.
Stupid IE6

Molly Ren
9 years ago

“Oh… and I mentioned Melville (and Carlyle) also as points of information. Stay on track, okay?”

Points of information, sure. But relevant? You’re not making much of a case for that.

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

“especially when you can go back and read them. . . “

I can indeed, and it’s naught but a clusterfuck. Which was all part of the “plan” (I know how these scenarios work; I’ve seen them far too many times!).

As I said earlier, I don’t respond to the five-hundred gallon treatment.

Rutee Katreya
9 years ago

Yes, I’m aware that it is “You’re”. Unlike you, I can actually catch some of my errors, and I corrected myself before I left earlier. Again, you’re trying to prove you’re smart by keeping reference materials on hand, but the simple fact is that writing is mostly about the editing. You waste words; of the many crimes a writer is capable of, this is amongst the highest.

Well, I fucking hope you just suck at the editting stages. It may be 90% of writing, but it’s still better than the thought that your writing was even sloppier to begin with.

And no, I don’t believe there is one feminist movement in lockstep. I believe there are a variety of sub-movements in synch.

Oh dear, you really are hopeless.

Rutree, you’re already making a fool of yourself and you don’t know it. Good thing you have only an audience of your peers around here — they’ll never tip you off about that!

I’m not really worried about the opinion of a squeaky toy. We already know you’re a living monument to the Dunning-Kruger effect; it’s written all over your weak attempts to set yourself up as a counter-philosopher to feminism

Yes, I’m aware that it is “You’re”. Unlike you, I can actually catch some of my errors, and I corrected myself before I left earlier. Again, you’re trying to prove you’re smart by keeping reference materials on hand, but the simple fact is that writing is mostly about the editing. You waste words; of the many crimes a writer is capable of, this is amongst the highest.

Well, I fucking hope you just suck at the editting stages. It may be 90% of writing, but it’s still better than the thought that your writing was even sloppier to begin with.

And no, I don’t believe there is one feminist movement in lockstep. I believe there are a variety of sub-movements in synch.

Oh dear, you really are hopeless.

Rutree, you’re already making a fool of yourself and you don’t know it. Good thing you have only an audience of your peers around here — they’ll never tip you off about that!

I’m not really worried about the opinion of a squeaky toy and wannabe pedant. We already know you’re a living monument to the Dunning-Kruger effect; it’s written all over your weak attempts to set yourself up as a counter-philosopher to feminism

hellkell: explain your statement. Enlarge. Elucidate.

OH ho ho ho ho ho, seriously? Not sure if troll or just stupid.

Am I an “MRA”? What IS an MRA, anyway? And am I “arguing”? And what do YOU think my “cause” is, assuming that I am trying to advance one?

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j227/RuteeKatreya/Phil101students.jpg

If you’re gonna critique somebody’s “turgid prose”, you should at least read ‘The French Revolution’ by Thomas Carlyle, or ‘Pierre’ by Herman Melville. That should put things in perspective. As far as I’m concerned, those works are the benchmarks; the gold standards.

Oh my god, cut 20% of your words, at bare minimum. I mean you’re not holding yourself to a high standard unless you’re trying to beat them out, but seriously, you waste words.

Whatever that means. Snootiness doesn’t look good on you.

It means my Phi 101 teacher would have openly mocked you for shallow thinking; this is the shit that embarrasses philosophy as a department.

“Oh… and I mentioned Melville (and Carlyle) also as points of information. Stay on track, okay?”

You used them to say “Well my writing isn’t so bad”. Except that just means there are people worse, if any.

KathleenB
KathleenB
9 years ago

FB: If you can’t deal with the comment threads here, the exit is thattaway. not a single person will try to prevent you from leaving.

Molly Ren
9 years ago

“As I said earlier, I don’t respond to the five-hundred gallon treatment.”

… and yet you keep commenting?

Molly Ren
9 years ago

Actually, fidelbogen, if the “500 Gallon Treatment” bothers you that much, I’m sure it would be easy to set up a tinychat where it was just you and Rutee. Or just you and Holly. I’ll make the popcorn. 😀

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

“You’re not allowed to self-define, douche.”

Feminism has never allowed the world outside its gates to self-define..so that is nothing new.

But fair enough. I guess that makes us even. . . eh?

And I mean ALL of “us” . . . on both sides.

So you guys stay behind your Maginot line, and maybe we’ll keep it cool, eh?

Oh..and bag the feminist subjectivism.

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

“…… and yet you keep commenting?”

Why not? When I’m on a roll, I tend to keep rolling. Call it inertia.

Molly Ren
9 years ago

“’…… and yet you keep commenting?’

“Why not? When I’m on a roll, I tend to keep rolling. Call it inertia.”

Or diarrhea.

mediumdave
9 years ago

Feminism has never allowed the world outside its gates to self-define..

Ha ha ha! What an utterly meaningless statement! Feminists do not have the power to prevent you, or any other human being, from defining themselves. What on earth are you getting at? (And the infamous two-dot ellipsis is just the icing on the cake. 😀 )

Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

I define non-feminism as eating only carrots. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner, nothing but carrots. Can’t even salt ’em.

This defining things game is fun!

And now I can authoritatively say that if you aren’t a feminist, you’re liable to suffer severe malnutrition, so, you know, we win.

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

“Feminists do not have the power to prevent you, or any other human being, from defining themselves. .”

I agree they haven’t got that far quite yet . .

(Hey, there was another two dot ellipsis for ya. )

Pecunium
9 years ago

fidelbogen: Let me help you out.

It is quite a spectacle to watch MRAs palavering with each other, in a huddle, in their own world. They don’t seem to realize just how small their world is, how big the outer world is, and how tedious and bizarre they sound to the rest of us. They are strong, snarky and cocky only among their own kind in their mutual admiration cavern, but turn them loose in a more culturally diverse environment which doesn’t reciprocate their reactions (or their jargons), and they are callow weaklings. If only they could see themselves as others see them. The trouble with most MRAs I conclude, is that they don’t know shit about feminism. Point being, that they have no privileged authority to self-define — the rest of the world can see perfectly well what feminism is, and draw its own conclusions.

FTFY

What was the point? What you said has zero content. Any group can be plugged into that screed and it means as much as it did when you wrote it.

Which is, actually, the problem with your writing in general. It’s like fat-free, sugar-sugar free, zero-calorie whipped cream. It looks as if it has substance, but there isn’t really anything there.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Melville is turgid? No. He belongs to a different consensus of prosody, and was working inside the tradition of Hawthorne (now there was someone I’d call turgid) an in reaction to Emerson and Thoreau. I’d not go so far as to say he never wasted words, but I don’t think one can say he was overworking his ideas.

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

“And now I can authoritatively say that if you aren’t a feminist, you’re liable to suffer severe malnutrition, so, you know, we win.”

And I can authoritatively say that if you are are a feminist, then you are a person of interest.

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

“Melville is turgid? “

“Pierre” is most certainly turgid. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

BlackBloc
BlackBloc
9 years ago

fidelbogen seems to be of the school of thought that considers saying nothing in many elaborate words is profundity. Somebody sic Alan Sokal on him, pronto.

Pecunium
9 years ago

fidelbogen: You (all) have a thin skin, don’t you? Interesting, that. . .

The projection is strong with this one.

You could have been thick skinned, looked at the mockery as if it were the flailings of the impotent and the ineffectual; lazing about in the small pond of their insignificance. You might even have penned a witty little dismissal on your own blog.

But no, your manly knickers were in a twist and you had to “show the uppity feminists what was what”.

Even at that, you might have been able to save some semblance of dignity, had you managed to pull the trigger on that and let it lie.

Nope, you had to try and prove to the people here how wrong they were. No evidence, just a bucket of blithering rhetoric dumped on the floor as if it had content.

Then you get offended when people laugh at the laughable.

That’s the definition of thin-skinned.

Amused
Amused
9 years ago

fidelbogen: Neither Melville nor Carlyle are turgid, since they actually have something of value to say. Your writing, by contrast, looks like a collection of “SAT words” strung together meaninglessly, but in a way that makes it obvious you’ve been itching to use them in a sentence.

Your Latin doesn’t impress me either. Given that the internet is brimming with lists of Latin phrases and insults of varying degree of reliability, you tossing out one would never lead a reasonable person to believe you have any knowledge of that language.

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

“your writing in general.”

I have critics in both directions — but mostly in a good one.

Oh…point taken per the “MRA” substitution. In fact, I’ve thought of that too, plenty of times.
But

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

“Your Latin doesn’t impress me either.”

Nor was it intended to do so. I guess you missed the broad sarcasm behind that, didn’tcha?

Molly Ren
9 years ago

“It is quite a spectacle to watch penguins palavering with each other, in a huddle, in their own world. They don’t seem to realize just how small their world is, how big the outer world is, and how tedious and bizarre they sound to the rest of us. They are strong, snarky and cocky only among their own kind in their mutual admiration cavern, but turn them loose in a more culturally diverse environment which doesn’t reciprocate their reactions (or their jargons), and they are callow weaklings. If only they could see themselves as others see them. The trouble with most penguins I conclude, is that they don’t know shit about feminism. Point being, that they have no privileged authority to self-define — the rest of the world can see perfectly well what feminism is, and draw its own conclusions.”

Not quite as good a madlib as the others we’ve had, alas.

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
9 years ago

“Then you get offended when people laugh at the laughable.”

And when did this happen? I must be getting forgetful in my old age.