Moving Against Feminism means Moving Toward Target Consensus

In a recent article on this website, I explained why it is important to draw a sharp line between feminism and non-feminism, and why this “bedrock binary” should be the foundation of political understanding that everything else is built upon:

What I didn’t provide in that article, is a working description of what feminism really is, that would make the binary meaningful. In the present article, I would like to at least somewhat correct that deficiency.

Truly, feminism is a face with a thousand masks. It has walked around in so many disguises that even people who oppose it cannot always agree on WHAT they are opposing. This lack of non-feminist agreement about what feminism really is, may be termed “target confusion”. It spawns indecision, floundering and flailing, and gives rise to the infamous “circular firing squad”. All this makes opposition to feminism difficult and inefficient.

To remedy such headaches, we should make the core truth about feminism evident to a broad spectrum of non-feminist people. If these people can discourse about the same things in the same language rather than talking past each other, they can work in concert to bring about feminism’s demise. They might still disagree on certain points, but at least their disagreements will be on the same page.

The sought-for common understanding of feminism is called “target consensus”. It is called that because it provides an understood target of operations toward which all may direct their efforts. We of the activated non-feminist sector must make the transition from target confusion to target consensus, and bring the middle mass gradually up to speed.

Let’s move toward target consensus, right now.

First, we ought to establish some general idea of what it means to not be feminist.

I think we can all agree that we have inspected feminism from the ground up, and that we have pondered its implications in the context of human history. Is not this so?

And clearly, having made our inspection, we must have concluded that feminism is not our preferred choice – otherwise we would have chosen it. That makes sense, wouldn’t you say?

To be more precise, would you say that we have chosen not to be bound by feminism’s theorizations, or by any extension of those theorizations? Certainly, that’s what I would say, and I’m sure that many of you would say likewise.

I believe that we as non-feminist people occupy a critical standpoint independent of feminist understanding – and that is why we are not bound by feminist theorization. I believe we possess the authority to define feminism on our own terms by the light of independent study. I would assert, in principle, that feminism IS what we say it is, and that the power to define feminism is not a sole feminist privilege. How does that sound? Are you on board with that program?

So in light of all the foregoing, I would pledge to uphold non-feminist autonomy, and to secure non-feminist existence against feminist imposition in whatever form this may arise. Having so pledged, I invite others to so pledge, and I feel confident that many will do so.

Now that we have laid down the elements of non-feminist identity, we must next undertake the quest for target consensus from a set of core ideas we can roughly agree on. Our rough agreement is a target consensus already, and what comes after it is a larger journey of discovery where we flesh out the details. In the end, we reach the correct understanding of feminism – and there is only one. Until then, we balance the long game with the pragmatic needs of the political moment.

So to begin, we must agree that feminism is not merely a definition and not merely a set of ideas developed from a definition. It is a set of patterns and practices manifested in the objective world, independently of any feminist’s imagination. We must concur upon this much, even if we concur upon nothing else.

That being said, we now propose a rough description which itemizes the key truth points our study has yielded. We call this the “seven points of understanding”, and it is meant to reveal more specifically what we have in mind when we pronounce the word “feminism”. Remember that a rough understanding is all we need at the present stage, and such understanding is what the following list provides. We can’t spend thirty years quibbling and sorting things out. We need to get things rolling:

Seven Points of Understanding

1. Feminism is a complex social system with interacting parts. The complexity of this system camouflages the core nature of it.

2. Feminism is an aggressor force that cannot co-exist with the world at large.

3. Feminism, at its core, is anti-male. Lacking such a core, it would effectively cease to exist.

4. Feminism’s driving purpose is to increase female power with no stipulated endpoint.

5. Lying and prevarication are foundational feminist behaviors.

6. Feminism will never stop until a non-feminist force intervenes to make it stop.

7. As non-feminist people, we agree that the word “feminism” signifies nothing virtuous or laudable.
   Very well. What we have shared here may compose the foundation for a tacit understanding amongst activated non-feminists. When such ones meet, they will be able to discourse meaningfully, and if they need to coordinate their operations they can do so with a shared reality map in view.

As abstainers from feminism, the force binding us together against feminism ought to outweigh any ideological or cultural differences that might drive us apart. It is imperative that we set aside such misunderstandings and form a loose but resilient coalition against a common adversary.

I say loose coalition, because you couldn’t properly call it an organization or a movement. Mere abstention from feminism does not equate to a politically accountable demographic. We are only as tightly woven as we need to be, but no tighter. A wink or a nod, in most cases, will suffice.

Those who wish to form properly chartered groups or clubs within this broader web are always free to do so, and to speak for themselves in whatever collective voice they deem suitable. However, I would urge all such groups to post a COMMITMENT TO NON-VIOLENCE near the top of their various bulkhead statements. Make clear that you disavow those who use violence, or make threats of violence. Put this in such bold terms that nobody – friend, foe, or indifferent member of the public – could pretend to miss it.

Feminism should be non-violently blocked, defied, snubbed, thwarted, taunted, stood up to, and made to lose face in the public square. This will take feminism down a peg. . . and then another peg. There’s nothing like being publicly shamed or shown up in front of the world, then trying to be your good old cocky self in front of that same world the next day. It’s not easy.

So we need to target feminism with such action, and we need to make the effect of this pervasive throughout the culture – signal-boosted where appropriate.

In every non-violent way imaginable, we should make feminism feel the heat of our stern displeasure, and the pressure of our collective, accumulated NO – a veritable “wall of no.”

The effect should percolate through every dimension of the cultural mindspace, condensing as a mist from the sky and seeping, as it were, from the cracks in the earth. It should be pervasive and subtle, as dark matter, yet flaring up visibly upon occasion.

Target consensus will make clear to us what we are working on, so that our separate task forces can vector in upon the task from their many directions, with optimal effect. Let us strive for target consensus.

The Map of Reality, also known as the Feminist/Non-feminist Cooperation Spiral