The femfanon

It's impossible to avoid running into the femfanon ... hm. I suppose at this point we need an explanation. Ok, let's.

The feminism canonⁱ is of course set by the actual females : the slavegirls, the "raped", generally speaking the adult female. It includes all those fearfully frightening (to little girls) items, like for instance the happenstance that female self-determination only exists to repel unfit males, and only goes as far as finding one of those guys. One of those guys whose footsteps in the dirt she's more than happy to lick, and counts herself blessed for the grandeur of having found such wonder. Like for another instance the happenstance that females are practically immune to pain, and very vulnerable to confusionⁱⁱ. Like many other things we won't go into here.

The feminism fanon, however, is principally set by confused boys, the sort that gets a PhD from Urbana without a clue as to whether the field he's supposedly studying even exists - because he's bought into the bizarre theory that "you can do anything you want".ⁱⁱⁱ Secondary, in lower numbers, to a lesser degree the feminism fanon is set by confused girls, the sort that have nothing. No money, no value, no knowledge, no skill, no ability, nothing at all. The sort that've not even bothered to learn how to suck cock properly, because "anyone can do that". The sort that are so immensely lazy that they figure morals and ethics are shorthand for "let's externalise costs", so that if she wants a $400 swimsuit she can't afford the best solution is for her to sit and whine as to how and why "society won't change". Because from her braindamaged perspective, it's much easier and therefore preferable for "all of society" to change rather than for her to get off her lazy butt and do half-and-half like a pro for the rest of the evening.^iv What's this "all of society" to her ? Nothing, she dun' care, let them change on their own dime to please shithead-miss-perfect. Just like her shithead parents did, instead of whipping her lazy ass.

So now that we've explained ourselves, let's continue where we started off. Obviously an adult male, either monogamous or haremous^v has plenty of interaction with the feminism canon. He has one or a few right at home^vi, they bitch at him about how his text is liable to be misunderstood by their children^vii all the time, he's up to date. It's impossible to avoid running into the femfanon however, especially when one does anything whatsoever with the Internet, and this because the Internet is (and has historically forever been) the house of fanon. That's really what it's supposed to be, that's the business model - from the first day of the first BBS you had the employees at the post office and the kids running the post office BBS. Different sets. The faculty of MIT and the kids running the MIT BBS. Different sets. On it goes.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, by the way. But I would like to point out that confusing the feminist fanon on the Internet for actual feminism is a mental lapse of comparable amplitude to forgetting that the community of Lord of the Rings fans are a group of people dedicated to exploring fiction, and interacting with them as if the place they're obsessed with is somehow real, perhaps an island off the coast of Japan. Obviously they wouldn't mind your approach, they'll probably be quite flattered by it, and in this sense spending an evening asking them about their fictitious costumes and the fictitious ethnology therein captured is a quite quaint, civilised and refined way to pass the time. Nevertheless, going home and forgetting that you've just discussed fiction would be the stuff psychosis is made out of. You know, mental illness. Actual mental illness, that thing where you take fiction for reality. When you think voices are real.

So you know, when I say feminism, I mean the canon. I do not mean the fanon, I have nothing against it, it's a cute and endearing way for children to spend their time, mimicking as best they can the behaviours and preoccupations of adults, the tropes of reality. Like a toy surgeon set intended for five year olds doesn't include scalpels, retractors or high voltage equipment, to wit all the things that actually make the medical profession, just so feminist fanon doesn't include any of the things that actually make feminism. But that's okay, because both the toy set and the fanon are intended for juveniles.

Nevertheless, when I say medicine I actually mean medicine, and when I say feminism I actually mean feminism. Which doesn't include confused little boys and girls with no historical footprint and of no direct importance in reality.

1. The canon-fanon distinction is a repackaging - in terms familiar to and geared towards the intellectual abilities of the current generation - of the ancient nominalia/realia disjunction, a matter close to a millennium old by now. We won't rehash it here, suffice to say that in all actual encounters, materialism soundly handed idealism its ass, and what's worse : idealism showed itself as pleased as it could be and more than happy to suck realism's cock, and then take it in the ass, and generally be "raped" to shreds. And when I use the quotes around rape, is to signify that I mean by it what you mean by it. [↩]
2. Men - or should we say young boys - are quite the opposite : not in the slightest bothered by any degree of confusion, just as long as they don't get hurt. [↩]
3. Sure, once you understand everything that can be done, and how and why, once you grasp the whole mechanism of the Universe you can do anything you want, but this is principally the result of you becoming unable to want idiocy, which is to say stuff outside this world. [↩]
4. Seriously, if it takes you more than a day to get some scratch together you're a failure, son, and I'm quite disappoint. [↩]
5. How do you call people who keep multiple women ? Monogamy-monogamous, haremy-haremous, right ? Should work, this heresy. [↩]
6. And if you don't, you're not an adult male, son. Cut that beard off, tis not for you yet. [↩]
7. Whether they actually have some or not, roles are roles. [↩]