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
Pecunium
10 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.

Obviously.

Perhaps some Gingko biloba would help.

Amused
Amused
10 years ago

fidelbogen: So … if it’s sarcasm, then the Latin bit couldn’t possibly have been intended to impress? I hate to elucidate the obvious, but you are incapable of logical thinking.

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
10 years ago

No, I meant the ‘getting offended’ part ……

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
10 years ago

“So … if it’s sarcasm, then the Latin bit couldn’t possibly have been intended to impress? I hate to elucidate the obvious, but you are incapable of logical thinking.”

You know, I am worried and troubled on your account, because I cannot see the “logic” in this very statement.

Truly, I cannot.

Snowy
Snowy
10 years ago

OH MY GOD I’ve been reading these comments and just realized fidelbogen is the guy from the OP! Don’t go away fidelbogen! I just have to go get my siphon hose and I’ll be right back!

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
10 years ago

“. . then maybe we could just call this thing we’re doing “feminism” and call it good?”

Yes, by all means do so. That would make things simple.

Rutee Katreya
10 years ago

Too stupid to know he’s stupid. Quite entertaining to watch him dance, no?

KathleenB
KathleenB
10 years ago

Let’s see: Ducking questions? check Misinterpreting remarks directed at him? check Quoting selectively? check Telling all us stupid feminists that we don’t understand our movement, but he does, by virtue of possessing a big, turgid, manly brain? check. Folks, we have a bog-standard antifeminist/MRA troll here! Cue the parade!

Amused
Amused
10 years ago

Rutee Katreya: I know, it’s a blast.

ME: You are incapable of logic.
FIDELBOGEN: I can’t see the logic! Honestly, I can’t!!

Yeah, we know.

ozymandias42
10 years ago

FB, yes, I am that Ozy. Yes, my blog comes from a feminist perspective; I’ve been actively involved in feminism, in one form or another, since I was fourteen years old. I am not sure why you think I think MRAs should be grateful for my efforts; I don’t actually target the blog at MRAs. Oddly enough, there are lots of people in the world who are interested in men’s rights who don’t feel that cock blockades and pussy cartels are actually a thing.

But yeah. Don’t like NSWATM, don’t read it. None of the bloggers expect your gratitude, you know?

hellkell
hellkell
10 years ago

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

Interesting that you would use a term police use when dealing with suspects. Have committed a crime or are we under suspicion?

hellkell
hellkell
10 years ago

^Have we.

Today is not my day wrt typing.

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
10 years ago

@Kathleen B:

Yes, there is strength in numbers. If you were to come into a non-feminist space, the locals would outnumber you and play the same game on you that you play here. We both know that.

By the way, I’ve seen people here committing that very same roster of offenses (ducking, misinterpreting, etc…), but with several players, it is easy to do this in a distributed, tag-team style.

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
10 years ago

“. . . or are we under suspicion?”

Yup. Always. That’s a basic; a given.

And you are welcome to turn that game around and play it in reverse, from your own side. Which you will, in any event.

And so we’ll both be playing that game mutually and equally.

Ahhhh…..equality.

Rutee Katreya
10 years ago

Actually, I helped convert a space much meaner than this into a feminist-friendly one. True, it was sympathetic, but work’s work.

Thing is, I actually can argue substantively, I understand the issues I claim to care about, and I am not a completely ineffective rhetoricist. You are none of these things. If you were half as smart as you thought you were and also correct, you could have offered something of substance. But you’re not even a tiny iota as capable as you think you are. Aught but a capering monkey.

Pecunium
10 years ago

By the way, I’ve seen people here committing that very same roster of offenses (ducking, misinterpreting, etc…), but with several players, it is easy to do this in a distributed, tag-team style.

One: nice to see you admit to it,

Two: [citation needed]

Holly Pervocracy
10 years ago

uh oh watch out guys we got a puppetmaster

we are but his puppets

truly it is a grand game he plays, saying nonsensical things and thus cleverly manipulating people into saying “that was a nonsensical thing”

all part of the plan, all part of the game

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
10 years ago

@Rutree:

You are entitled to your opinion. We all are.

And yes..I didn’t bother to spell your name right. 😉

Hengist
Hengist
10 years ago

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.

Sounds like a plan. See you soon, “uncle Adam”.

Hengist
Hengist
10 years ago

Thing is, I actually can argue substantively, I understand the issues I claim to care about, and I am not a completely ineffective rhetoricist.

Really? Is that before or after you resort to spewing insults and ad hominems?

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
10 years ago

“One: nice to see you admit to it,

Two: [citation needed]”

One: what did I “admit to”?

Two: “nice to see you admit to it.”

Fuck MRAs
Fuck MRAs
10 years ago

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

Fixed that for ya

Pecunium
10 years ago

Holly: Thing is, I actually can argue substantively, I understand the issues I claim to care about, and I am not a completely ineffective rhetoricist.

Really? Is that before or after you resort to spewing insults and ad hominems?

Holly, he didn’t say he does it, merely that he’s able.

He’s subtle that way.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

…Hawthorne (now there was someone I’d call turgid)…

Dang it Pecunium! *falls asleep at the reference of Hawthorne*

Rutee Katreya
10 years ago

And yes..I didn’t bother to spell your name right. 😉

Failpedant, but that’s probably better than the opposite. Still, TSTKTS.

Really? Is that before or after you resort to spewing insults

Before, during, and after, little concern troll. If I’m mocking you, you’re not actually my target anymore. It’d be great if you saw your own stupidity, but I’m not overly concerned with it. My target is the audience. Doesn’t work on everyone, but it does actually work on a fair number of people. Your movement is ridiculous; effective ridicule reduces its truck. Particularly effective ridicule can increase that of my own cause.

and ad hominems?

Ah-ah-ah, you have to learn to use a logical fallacy correctly before you can use it at all. Ad hominem is “You’re stupid, and therefore wrong”. It invokes qualities of the target to imply or outright state wrongness of position. Saying you are wrong, and therefore stupid, is simply an insult. It does not say you are wrong because of character trait X, it says you are wrong, and ALSO possess character trait X. The difference is subtle to a fool, perhaps, but to the rest of us…

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
10 years ago

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

Fixed that for ya”

Some people say “troll” like it’s the worst thing in the universe.

I have occasionally been called that, and I’m like. . . “uh, whatever.”

Hengist
Hengist
10 years ago

… and Pecunium scores an own goal. :p

Rutee: You sure like to talk a lot, don’t you. My guess is you don’t have many friends or get out much. If you’re like this in real life, I doubt anyone could stand to be around you for long.

Fuck MRAs
Fuck MRAs
10 years ago

“Some people say “troll” like it’s the worst thing in the universe. ”

Projection, much?

Holly Pervocracy
10 years ago

This is getting ugly, guys.

I’m so angry, if this keeps up I’m going to not-have-sex with all of you.

So there.

(This exerts irresistible control, right?)

Amused
Amused
10 years ago

“Rutee: You sure like to talk a lot, don’t you. My guess is you don’t have many friends or get out much. If you’re like this in real life, I doubt anyone could stand to be around you for long.”

Didn’t you say something about ad hominems just now, like, in your previous post? MRA’s love to use that term, but it doesn’t mean what they think it means.

Also they like the term “fallacy”, throwing it left and right. And then they respond to a comprehensive explanation of how much mothers’ work in caring for their children is devalued in our culture while men’s is overvalued with “Ur ugly and u have no friends”.

I rest my case.

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
10 years ago

““Some people say “troll” like it’s the worst thing in the universe. ”

Projection, much?”

I honestly have NO idea wtf you are talking about here. Really.

Hengist
Hengist
10 years ago

“Didn’t you say something about ad hominems just now, like, in your previous post?”

Hey, when in Rome…

Rutee Katreya
10 years ago

Rutee: You sure like to talk a lot, don’t you. My guess is you don’t have many friends or get out much. If you’re like this in real life, I doubt anyone could stand to be around you for long.

Why, because I’m not nice to morons who come stomping in to tell me I’m wrong, and don’t even have the decency to support their claims? What makes you think that has anything whatsoever to do with how I treat friends?

Rutee Katreya
10 years ago

Really, you’re going to stick to your guns about ad hom? But you don’t understand what it means, and think it applies to all insults! It’d be nice for an MRA to care about facts some point, but I’m not sure why I keep *expecting* it…

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
10 years ago

Yes, a feminist knows what feminism means, from within feminism.

A non-feminist knows what it means from outside of feminism.

hellkell
hellkell
10 years ago

Yes, a feminist knows what feminism means, from within feminism.

A non-feminist knows what it means from outside of feminism.

What the fuck does that even MEAN? You should be a chef, you are a master at making word salad.

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
10 years ago

It is very plain and simple. Feminism exists (is embedded) in the world. However, it is not the world, which means it can be known from beyond or outside of itself.

hellkell
hellkell
10 years ago

So what does it mean outside of itself? You did state earlier we don’t know shit about feminism, so enlighten us, oh great one.

mediumdave
10 years ago

Feminism exists (is embedded) in the world. However, it is not the world, which means it can be known from beyond or outside of itself.

A completely trivial statement, presented as if it were profound. Yep. Fancy mouse breeding exists in the world, which means it can be known from beyond… hey, you can play this game with nearly any group of people.

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
10 years ago

Personally, I think feminism can be seen from the outside, as you can see a house from the outside. (Or the inside.) But if that concept is useless to some people, oh well.

cynickal
cynickal
10 years ago

Sounds like a plan. See you soon, “uncle Adam”.

Hahahahaha!
Ah, excellent.
Then give me a call.

My first internet stalker. You’ve made my week.
Don’t disappoint.

KathleenB
KathleenB
10 years ago

It is very plain and simple. Feminism exists (is embedded) in the world. However, it is not the world, which means it can be known from beyond or outside of itself.

Whoa, dude, that’s deep!! You have totally expanded my universe, man, thanks! Got any cheesy poofs?

Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
10 years ago

philosophy 101 all up in this thread

Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
10 years ago

david foster wallace would be proud

BlackBloc
BlackBloc
10 years ago

There’s a good reason I’m straight edge, and it’s so I know at least that way I’ll never think stoner logic a la FB is deep.

mediumdave
10 years ago

Yes, FB, you are correct that any given ideology or school of thought can be evaluated by those who accept its basic premises, or by those who do not. And?

I mean, that’s an observation so commonplace, it’s on par with “water is wet” or “pointy objects hurt when they jab you.” One would think you’d be beyond that level by now.

Dracula
Dracula
10 years ago

BlackBloc: I could be more stoned than I’ve ever been in my life, and even then FB’s shit wouldn’t have an ounce of substance.

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
10 years ago

@KathleenB:

Go ahead and believe what you wish. I’m beyond caring. Fine. Okay. Dandy. Feminism presents no objective aspect to the world beyond itself, it throws no shadow, has no ripple effect, no impact, no unintended consequences, no collateral damages, etc, etc. . .

And non-participants in feminism are not aware of any such things, because of course such things objectively do not happen . . so how could they be aware of it? In fact, feminism “is the world”, entirely, totalistically, and so there is nothing anywhere which is not feminism, no space from which feminism can be known other than “for itself”.

So yup, you are totally right, feminism is the world, and feminISTS are the only ones authorized to say anything of what feminism is. Feminism is only what they say it is, and I would never but never try to “mansplain” them out of it! Never, ever!

Don’t worry, be happy! Whatever you need to tell yourself. I won’t tell you any different — I might tell somebody else, but oh… I will not tell you. That’s a promise!

fidelbogen
fidelbogen
10 years ago

“I mean, that’s an observation so commonplace, it’s on par with “water is wet” or “pointy objects hurt when they jab you.” One would think you’d be beyond that level by now.”

Thank you for pointing that out. I will do my damnedest to rise above the level of thinking that water is wet, etc. My heavens, such useless information anyway!

KathleenB
KathleenB
10 years ago

FB: There are valid criticisms to be made of feminism – I’m the last to claim otherwise. I’m saying that coming onto a feminist blog and telling us that you understand feminism better than we do (some of us have probably been feminists longer than you’ve been alive, btw) is rude as all fuck. If I were to go to an MRM blog and tell them that they have no right to self-define their movement, they would rightly tell me to fuck off – because that’s not how it works. People outside of a movement don’t get to decide anything about said movement. You can criticize, mock, whatever, even have your own, personal definition of feminism, but the overarching definition of feminism can only come from feminists themselves.