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.
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.
FB: Also, I never made any of the claims you’re citing as mine.
FB, lemme help you out. This is what just happened:
FB: “Feminism is perceived differently by those inside and outside the movement.”
Other posters: “Yes, we know, that is an obvious statement. How is it relevant?”
FB: “Hah! You guys think that feminism is the world! You are therefore silly, and I win the argument.”
It’s a bit ridiculous.
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.
So…would you mind telling us what you think that aspect, shadow, effect, impact, etc, is, now that you’ve established that feminism can be perceived from a number of different viewpoints?
Rutee: Don’t forget the CalvinBall declarations of point scoring. Mind you, he is laboring under the delusion he’s playing the same game as the rest of us.
And while there is nothing wrong with playing with oneself, doing it in public is a trifle gauche.
Wow. Not a single question answered not a single substantive point made. It’s kind of amazing really.
Like reading a terrible Tom Robbins impression while drinking champagne in the sun.
“. . but the overarching definition of feminism can only come from feminists themselves.”
There we would differ. I would maintain that the insiders can decide how it arches for them, but that outsiders can always form their own conclusions based on how it impinges on their reality.
Self-define all you wish; but bear in mind that thought is free and others may form their own conclusions, based on their own experience — and then propagate their conclusions as a basis for organizing. And there is nothing you can do to stop them.
And yes, you can do the same to the “MRM” as well, to your heart’s content. I don’t much care, because frankly, there IS no “MRM”. It is a figment. A construct. You would be chasing shadows. But be my guest, knock yourself out.
Oh, and I know when I am being “rude as all fuck” — so call me all the bad names you wish. And I don’t consider this a “feminist blog” in the usual way. It is the friggin’ Manboobz blog, know what I’m saying? it’s not some highclass bar where they serve cheese and wine, it’s a cheezy-ass little frickin’ tavern for crap-sakes!
And you’re shitting all over our neighborhood dive bar. Where are bouncers when you need them?
Look, you’ve typed a lot, but that’s about it. No substance.
I mean, absolutely nothing of value. A substance free zone.
Except the part about manboobz. Ignoring, for a moment, that the accusation is coming from someone whose “essay” was linked and lauded by that most erudite of thinkers “Marky Mark”, I must point out that this site is both a silly tavern and a wine bar.
That’s what makes it fun.
It will never cease to amuse me that misogynists come to a site with the subtitle “misogyny. I mock it.” and proceed to throw a shit fit when they get, ya know, MOCKED.
What in the name of ass does all this “dude, what if the blue I see is not the blue you see, dude, we should get chicken sandwiches” have to do with your opinion that women control men with their sexuality?
You haven’t even tried to defend that one.
Rude as all fuck? No. That would be Meller, or What’s His Name the Musician, or NWO, or MRAL when he’s on a tear, or AntZ.
You were merely garden varieties of rude, incoherent, logically invalid and generally wrong, covered in a veneer of verbosity masquerading as wit.
Had you the depth of a wading pool there might have been something to actually debate, but it was more on the order of watching dogs bite soap bubbles.
“It’s a bit ridiculous. . .”
Your report of “what just happened” is inaccurate. I made clear that I was not “arguing”.
I was merely stating an existential position, and prescribing it only for myself. Not all communication takes the form of ‘argument’, you know.
@KathleenB:
Okay, you didn’t make those claims, nor did I claim that you made them. But in a hypothetical way, you are free to make them if you so wish. So far as I’m concerned.
@VoIP: No, I am not arguing those points; I am not trying to command belief for them, and not selling them to anybody. You are free to believe or disbelieve — however, it can always be of interest to learn more precisely how or what ‘the other side’ thinks. Even if you don’t necessarily get to the “why” of it.
See, this is why insipidity is a banning offense on Pharyngula…
“You haven’t even tried to defend that one.”
And why should I? It never occurred to me.
You should defend what you said because this is a blog post about it! On which many criticisms of it have been offered!
I thought you were here to address those criticisms.
Apparently you’re here to offer the verbal equivalent of “I’m here. Yep. Still here. Check me out, being here.”
“. . the verbal equivalent of “I’m here.”
A simple suggestion. Quit throwing sticks on the fire.
You too are saying “Yep, still here, etc..”.
At this point I guess I am throwing sticks on a fire, but I’m still puzzled why you’re so unashamed of, you know, being the fire.
Originally I came here to point out that the idea that women control the world because they can say “no” to sex is completely ludicrous–all women control that way is whether they have sex. If they’re lucky.
“You should defend what you said because this is a blog post about it! On which many criticisms of it have been offered!”
That “imperative” (should) exists only in your mind.
Guys, you’re forgetting the important point here: Fidelbogen read a hundred pages of Moby Dick when he was NINE!
This clearly makes him a brilliant writer and thinker, so, uh, keep that in mind.
“I’m still puzzled why you’re so unashamed of, you know, being the fire.. . .”
I think what we’re looking at here is, well…a cultural difference.
You know, that abstract code of “shame” whereof you speak. . . simply does not register for ME.
Being an asshole isn’t cultural.
Anyway, I can’t believe that I’m flouncing here, but since you’ve made it pretty clear that you’re not going to stop posting and not going to start talking about anything substantive, I guess I have to be the one to cut it off. I’ve got homework anyway.
(Homework is a social construct! I am superior to my homework! I laugh at the concept of homework and those who care about doing it! …But it’s still due Monday.)
XD
“…I guess I have to be the one to cut it off. I’ve got homework anyway.”
By all means, get to your homework. Sounds like a plan.
“Talking about something substantive” apparently means “engaging in argument”, but in the present case that would involve laying out (for you) a long, steep learning curve — a task I can’t be lumbered with here/now. Anyway, you seem to have a recherché understanding of what “substantive” means.
Oh…since you have mentioned “asshole”, well, you are voicing your opinion there. And as you know, everybody’s got one of those..right?
All right, tackle that homework. I need to be elsewhere at the moment, too.
Shorted FB: I’m an admitted asshole with nothing to contribute except skidmarks on the carpet, but I’m gonna hang around and harass you feminists some more. Because, evidently, James Franco.
As far as I’m concerned, those works are the benchmarks; the gold standards.
SEMICOLON MISUSE
SEMICOLON MISUSE
Lawks, I’m going to have to go take a breather after that one. It’s a comma unless they’re independent; overuse of semicolons just makes you look foolish, self-absorbed, and self-aggrandizing.
david foster wallace is masturbating all over this thread
Did FB say anything yet? I blinked and might have missed it.
I just want you guys to know that every time someone says “turgid” I think of turgid wangs.
(Incredibly enough, that link is SFW.)
This isn’t related to the post at all, but rather the picture–that calico kitten is either female or a sterile male with two x chromosomes. Both equally awful to an MRA!
@MRAL
We’re in agreement.
There are, I find, three broad categories of anti-feminists:
1) The core principles of feminism are bad
2) The core principles of feminism are good, but feminists have moved away from those core principles and now feminism is bad.
3) The core principles of feminism are good, but most people who call themselves feminists have an evil agenda and are using the name of feminism to legitimize it (or are dupes).
FB strikes me as type 3, but it’s possible he’s an inarticulate 2 or a vague 1.
Like, this:
could be 2 or 3. It could even be 1, if you assume he “knows” we’re all wrong about what the core principles are.
fidel:
You don’t have to engage with us, but if you comment on a blog the assumption is that you intend to engage with the other commenters; if you merely want to state things, you can do that on Twitter of Facebook or Tumblr or your own blog, or talk to an empty room, or write it down with pen and paper, or something. Now, engagement isn’t necessarily argument, but by the nature of the things you’re stating, you engaging on Manboobz is likely to end up that way.
@David Futrelle …Uhhhhhhh Who are you calling GUYS? I don’t think any of us GIRLS/GALS/LADIES want to be lumped in with that gender bias word…but thanx for your input!