At the heart of the non-feminist revolution lies the project to take back control of the cultural narrative from feminism. We call this project the battle for feminism’s soul.
To take control of the narrative means, among other things, to shove a completely new conceptual reality into the feminist mindspace with no prior explanation or preparation. For them, it would be like walking into a movie halfway through — although that comparison hardly does justice to the radical nature of what we are proposing.
The point is, that they have had more than enough time to tell the rest of the world what “reality” is. The time has come for them to shut up and experience life on the receiving end. It is now their turn to wonder what in heaven’s name is going on, and be impolitely told to “get with the program.”
The treatment that we would dish out differs little from how they have treated the rest of the world for half a century. Henceforth, every settled notion of theirs will be jostled in the common marketplace of ideas like it was just any old thing. They will be critiqued, problematized, made light of, or best of all ignored when they try to express themselves. No more epistemic privilege of any kind, and no more pampering of their aesthetic sensibilities or lexical conventions. Thuswise they shall fare. They will lick it up, and they will like it.
We advocate this as a policy, consistent with the doctrine of post-argumentalism. Post-argumentalism proposes that argument or debate has no primacy among the methods we might use to move our project forward. Post-argumentalism further proposes that argument or debate, although useful in combination with other methods, is by no means imperative to the realization of our ends.
For in the end, we are not obligated to argue with a bully, a tyrant, or a lunatic. We do not delude ourselves that if we craft our words well enough the bully, tyrant or lunatic will suddenly understand us, admit that we are right, and begin to act differently. That realization is a truth which sets us free. So we are free to block their power unceremoniously, by walking away from argument altogether and moving ahead with our plans.
Those who specialize in argument, debate or explanation are certainly free to set up shop doing what they do best, according to their several areas of expertise. It is not good to waste any natural talent you might possess. But we have understood that argument or debate are not the main engine that will press matters forward. Recruitment, networking and mobilization will do that, independently of whether our enemy is persuaded or unpersuaded.
Very well. We have drawn our conclusions, and we claim the right to state them freely and to assume that others are up to speed about what we are saying. We cannot be bothered to attach a full explanatory essay to every word or concept, every time we use it, in our spoken or written communication. So in true post-argumental fashion, we do not argue the merit of our discourse by explaining it.
We must assume that our foundational ideas have been sufficiently established by an accumulated history of explanation, and that adversaries will make some effort to learn the basics before they converse with us. We must assume that the laborious work of establishing our ground of meaning has been concluded, and that we may now discourse with that agreeable speed which is properly the life of conversation.
So any feminist on earth must either sink or swim in the ocean of ideas that we will generate. If we graciously stop to explain, it is more than our duty requires, and gratitude is in order. But we won’t slow down for them, and we will unleash a torrent of new jargons, new concepts and new frames of reference that will leave them mentally adrift and bewildered, as if the ground had been ripped from under their feet without warning and they were suddenly bobbing in zero gravity with no idea of up or down any more.
No doubt they will find this disturbing, and will experience something like culture shock when they realize that their reactions are not automatically shared, and that people not only don’t know what the hell they are talking about, but are rudely telling them so!
Such is the non-feminist invasion of feminist mindspace.
Feminist ideology has been broken to the ranks, and must share the stage with everybody else. Nothing about the customary feminist discourse will be shown any deference, any leniency or any right of way through any discussion whatsoever. Feminism does not “own the conversation,” and accordingly does not set the rules for any conversation where non-feminist participants are present.
Granted, where none but feminists are present it may be said that they are “in the feminist clubhouse,” and may order the conversation as they see fit. But in the forum of humanity, it behooves them to embrace a more cosmopolitan outlook and “do as the Romans do.”
More and more, feminism’s realm of thought and discourse will implode, and it will be as if the floodwaters were breaking through the barriers from every direction, sweeping away every vestige of narrative privilege they have ever enjoyed and placing them on a footing of conversational “equality” with any male rights agitator, or any non-feminist Joe and Sally, they happen to encounter.
They can barricade themselves in the towers of academia for a while, but in the end the towers too will crumble and be swept away, and they will have no choice but walk through the world to the beat of a timeless drummer whom they can no longer ignore. Either that, or go crazy and do something stupid.
So . . I would prepare for that day, if I were them.
I really would do that. . . . if I were them.
The cover image is courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
