Fidelbogen (a highly respected and well known anti-feminist) sent me this anonymous tip on Skype a moment ago.  It doesn’t seem like there’s a way to verify this, but you never know.  And tbh, I’ve never heard of Zoe Quinn until now.  After a quick google search, I discovered that she has a rather negative reputation, so I probably wouldn’t put it passed her.

What do you all think?

How Feminism Works: Some Basic Principles by Fidelbogen


Fidelbogen’s blog

1. The dictionary defines feminism as follows: “The doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.” This is inadequate due to the problematic nature of the term “equality”, which has no stable meaning beyond the realm of mathematics. Hence, the meaning can forever be refreshed, reframed or updated, and new demands for “equality” can always be put forward. The world will never contain enough “equality”, and feminism will never go out of business because it will always find new “inequality” in need of correction.

2. Feminism’s binding principle and driving force is disaffection toward men and maleness. This is arrayed on a spectrum, with mild disenchantment to the lower end, and vitriolic animosity, bordering on psychopathic, to the upper. If disaffection toward men, as men, did not exist in the world generally, then feminism itself would not exist. Feminism is not driven by vehemence about mere issues and abstract principles. Its politics are rooted in personal feelings about men. Feminism’s political, you might say, is personal. And so personal emotion is the only thing that keeps feminism in motion.

3. Feminism divides broadly into two cultural cohorts: academic feminism (more intellectual), and pop feminism (less intellectual). These make opposing ends of a polarity, with a continuum stretching between them. Feminism as a whole needs both the academic and the pop cohorts. The academic cohort is needful so that feminism will have an intellectual vanguard — so that the snake will have a head, in other words. The pop cohort is needful so that the vanguard ideology will be demographically incarnated in numbers — so that the snake will have a body, in other words. Sophisticated ideas originate from the academic cohort, and these trickle down to the pop cohort by the process of popularization.

4. At any point on the academic-pop continuum, you will find feminists from any point on the disaffection spectrum. Simply observe that the identical range of viciousness shows up at every intellectual level. Along with viciousness comes irrationality or intellectual dishonesty. All of this is transparent among the undisciplined pop feminists, but concealed under layers of erudite doubletalk among the academics.

5. Feminism at large should be understood as a social organism, or mechanism if you prefer. The bottom line, is a division of functions which generates the illusion that “feminism is not monolithic.” That cliché is either true or false, depending on how you understand “monolithic”. It is true that feminism has many brands, flavors, schools of thought, “aspects”, and so on. In that regard, it is anything but monolithic. But when you consider that these different manifestations combine toward a common purpose as the parts of an organism or mechanism would do, then feminism emerges as One Thing — hence “monolithic”. Accordingly, so far as we are concerned, feminism is indeed monolithic.

6. Several counter-feminist (or reality-based) definitions of feminism have been proposed, all of which point in the same general direction. One of these runs as follows: “Feminism is the project to increase the power of women.” When you combine this with the dictionary definition (which describes feminism as a quest for “equality”) and when you consider that “equality” is a mirage shimmering always out of reach, it is easy to see that chasing so-called “equality” ad infinitum, will only increase the power of women ad infinitum. But to increase the power of women, you must increase it in relation to something, and that “something” can only be men. So by its inherent logic, the feminist project can only be the project to put women in a state of power supremacy over men. In sum, therefore, feminism is female supremacism.

7. Feminism’s most effective safeguard against discovery, is to ridicule the very idea that it (feminism) is female supremacist, and to mock whoever might advance such an idea. Such words as “paranoid” or “misogynistic” will characteristically be employed to this end.

8. The project to increase women’s power does not positively require disaffection toward men in order to get started. But without it, the project would face a practical limit — to wit, the constraint that mutuality and unselfish regard for the other might impose. Yet sweep all that aside and you can pave the road of depredation as far as your lack of scruples will carry you. Indeed, that is where disaffection toward men comes in handy, and where the project to increase female power hits no glass ceiling of any kind.

9. Advocacy for women’s interests, in whatever form, will increase female advantage and thereby increase female power. Yet the advocates involved in such work needn’t feel any conscious hostility toward men. They need only carry on industriously, disavow anti-male sentiments, and draw attention away from man-hating radicals by such distractionary statements as “not all feminists are like that”, or “I’m not that kind of feminist”, or “those people are only fringe extremists.” At times, they will deny that such feminists are even feminists at all. Still, the latter will continue to exist, and to do what they do, while their milder sisters look the other way.

10.The proclivity of feminism is to grow in the direction of greater female empowerment. In so doing, it initiates changes in the surrounding world. These changes create endless new obstacles to the female empowerment project, and force endless modifications to feminist policy in order to overcome said obstacles. At times, these modifications will involve changing the rules of the game altogether. There is no help for this, for if feminism operated from a fixed set of rules, it would leave degrees of freedom that would permit male autonomy to operate. This in turn would set an absolute upper limit on female empowerment. Code-switching, from one code of rules to another, is therefore an inherent feature of feminism as a social organism.

11. Feminist code-switching operates through space as well as through time, since at any given moment an indefinite number of distinct feminist rule systems, planet-wide, are found to be operating. This is quite understandable, given that women differ greatly as to taste, inclination, station in life, and so on. Hence, their empowerment needs will differ, and each must employ a suitable code of rules.

12. We may summarize by saying that feminism’s being is identical with its being-in-motion. “Perpetual Revolution” is the name we have given to this condition

Public DEATH THREAT on Men's Rights Edmonton Website [Article by Fidelbogen]

I recently published an article on the Men’s Rights Edmonton blog, in connection with the cross-Canada postering campaign. That article has gotten around 20 comments, one of which was a clearly phrased threat of violence that could be interpreted as a death threat also. I did a screen capture, which I share above - click to enlarge.

As you see, this threat is directed against the pro-male partisans of the Men’s Rights Edmonton group. Among other things, they are accused of “rape apology” and of being woman haters - although the commenter offered no evidence of this.  (For the record, the recent postering campaign did not concern the subject of rape in any way, so it is hard to see where the accusation of rape apology comes from.)

I would characterize this commenter as an objective feminist. 

The article on which the comment appeared, is the following:

- MORE -

The most important thing to remember is, that even if the ‘radical’ feminists are a minority, they are the cutting edge. They are what the future for feminism MUST be, if it is to have any future at all. There is really only one path which feminism can follow in its development…. and the radfems ARE that path. If feminism as a whole was not constantly inching in a more and more radical direction, it would have nothing to do and would quickly collapse.
—  Fidelbogen
That’s Right: There is a War Against Men! by Fidelbogen


A war against men, and things male, is currently under way in much of the world. The exact form and content of this war varies from one region to the next but, anecdotal exceptions notwithstanding, it is more or less present everywhere.

It is fashionable to scoff at the very idea that a war against men is happening. That is understandable, given that whoever is complicit in such a war would instinctively wish to cover it up and change the subject.

To be fair, we can admit that the phrase “war against men” sounds a bit melodramatic and might seem outlandish to anybody who lives a comparatively sheltered life. So in the interest of making things clear, let us try a manner of expression that is less metaphoric and emotive, and more objectively descriptive.

Let us say, that a state of pernicious anti-male bias pervades the culture at large. Let us add that this state of anti-male bias is insidious, expansionist, attritional, and opposed to male well-being.

To elaborate, this state of anti-male bias is rooted in traditional culture – which harbors gynocentrism and male disposability at its core. The post-industrial trend known as feminism does not overthrow traditional culture, but rather extends it and retrofits it in order to maximize female advantage, and to enlarge the scope of female power as a whole.

In traditional culture, men and women lived under a social arrangement where each group, as a group, had particular rights and responsibilities. This arrangement tended to favor women in some ways, and men in others. However, the feminist effort has been to lift responsibilities from women and to expand their rights, while placing more responsibilities on men and reducing their rights. In sum, the feminist effort has been to increase favoritism toward women, and the growth of anti-male bias has been both a natural consequence of this favoritism and a spur to the expansion of it.

The present statement is an objective description of reality, and feminist assertions to the contrary may be classified as propaganda.

The war against men, defined as a pervasive state of anti-male bias, accordingly draws force from both the pre-feminist (“traditional”) culture, and from a willful feminist effort to capitalize on that culture. The feminist effort has amounted to a campaign of aggression, renewed through time, with no clearly stipulated endpoint. This campaign has been directed toward a designated enemy, namely men and things male – or as feminist euphemism would have it, “the patriarchy”.

It is chiefly for these reasons that we feel justified in speaking of a war against men. We know the expression is metaphorical, and not always obvious until certain things are pointed out. However, once those things are pointed out and made visible, they stubbornly refuse to be invisible again. Once you see, you cannot unsee.

We find it cumbersome to be forever inserting the phrase “a state of pernicious anti-male bias which pervades the culture at large” into our speech and writing. It is more expedient to say “war against men”. Additionally, for reasons given, this usage accurately describes what is happening on earth. So we will continue to speak of a “war against men”, as our pleasure dictates, because we find it both expedient and accurate to do so.

Fidelbogen: What do the Feminists REALLY Mean when they say “Patriarchy”? [VIDEO + Text]


Text & Video

I am seeing a new trend among the feminists. They have finally figured out that a lot of us regular folks consider the feminist notion of “patriarchy” to be intellectually dubious and problematic, and that we are refusing to discourse in that vein, full stop. Hence, the feminists are starting to insist that yes, ”patriarchy” is a real thing, and taking active steps to defend the idea.

My own point concerning the feminist key term “patriarchy” is, that we activated non-feminists don’t care a fig what they say this word actually means. We care only what they actually mean when they say this word! We are intellectually pragmatic, and that is our path of knowledge.

Following, is an article which I wrote back in 2006. It summarizes pretty much everything germane to the present discussion. I republish it now because it is more timely that ever:

What do the feminists really mean by the term “patriarchy”? When this word rolls off a feminist tongue, what does it specifically refer to? Is it possible to discover what they are talking about in terms of the utmost clarity, simplicity, and above all usability, and reduce it to a formula that will smack the nail bang on the head every time?

Understand, that we wish to unpack the occulted lexical thread of signification which the word patriarchy carries throughout ALL examples of feminist rhetoric. When THEY talk about patriarchy, THEY assuredly mean something particular, something consistent, something examinable, something that would manifest their devices if it were brought to light. From the highest towers of the academy to the lowest reaches of the pop-feminist gutter, they all talk about “patriarchy”, and in their varied accents they are all referring to the same thing. It is to this thing specifically that we direct our enquiry, in order that we may know it and name it and decode feminist speech by the light of it.

Here is the secret: When feminists speak of patriarchy, all they are really talking about is male power. It’s just that simple. All of their circumlocutions dance endlessly and evasively around this—that patriarchy is exactly synonymous with male power, neither more nor less than male power, and that in all cases the terms patriarchy and male power may be interchanged with a negligible adulteration of meaning.

Try the experiment yourself. Find a piece of feminist writing where the word patriarchy occurs; replace this word with male power; see if it makes any fundamental difference. Also, see if it throws an unexpectedly revealing light upon the matter, yielding a sense and consistency superior to the original version.

If you wish, replace the word patriarchy with the simple word “men”, and it will yield similar results. I know that many feminists have denied that patriarchy equals “men”, but think for a minute: is not bare existence in itself a form of power? Tell me who has more male power: a man who exists, or a man who doesn’t?

No feminist understanding of “patriarchy” makes any ultimate sense if you divorce this word from the idea of male power. If you aren’t talking about male power in some way then you are wasting your time talking about patriarchy in any way whatsoever. Let that thought be your femspeak decoder template.

Feminist answer experts, seeking to confuse the issue, might reply that patriarchy is male power plus something else. Maybe so. But if you subtracted the male power part, the “something else” part wouldn’t stand up any better than an empty gunny-sack, whereas the “male power” part—even by itself—would remain fully serviceable within the calculus of meaning.

Every feminist analysis that I’m aware of does no better than make “something else” to be a form of male will-to-power NFsmallemanating from the allegedly “constructed” nature of maleness in the first place. But this is a completely circular explanation that will never boost the discussion beyond square one, so we might as well scrap it. Besides, the whole mess boils down to male power anyway, so that in the end all you are really saying is that patriarchy is male power plus male power.

So in the end, you can’t go far wrong if you simply set “patriarchy” equal to “male power”. You’ll go further wrong if you select any other option.

It follows that any feminist who talks about “ending” patriarchy or reducing it in some way, is also talking about ending or reducing male power in some way.

So what does male power mean? It means: any power of any kind which any male citizen might happen to possess.

And exactly what is this thing called…power? That is a very good and very important question.

In the realm of human affairs, as near as we can make it, power is a substance compounded of two ingredients: IDENTITY, and AGENCY.

Identity means the sum of all factors, both mental and physical, which identify you as a discrete center of conscious awareness in contradistinction to other such discrete centers.

Agency means your capacity to either effect or prevent change through the exercise of your volition.

Let that sink in. Take a break for a few minutes, if you want to. Get away from the computer. Go outside , look at the clouds, listen to the birds, enjoy the fresh air.

Very well, you are back. Let’s recapitulate.

Patriarchy is a feminist code word for male power. Male power means any power of any kind which any male citizen might happen to posess, and power specifically means identity plus agency. So in practice, the feminist keyword patriarchy maps to the identity and agency of any male citizen.

Gentle reader, you as a person posess identity and agency. In other words, you posess power. You mightn’t think you have enough of it, but you do have some. And so long as you have some, you have freedom. Again, possibly not enough for your liking…but some. And some is always enough to get you started—enough to leaven the dough, you might say. Be glad of it, and work intelligently with it.

Let’s see how feminism enters the picture. Feminism is an anti-male hate movement, and it is perfectly natural that when you hate something you will seek to deprive it of power—the more the better. We have equated power with identity and agency, and so have the feminist ideologues—although not necessarily in the same terms. Still, they have copped the base mechanics that we’ve outlined here. They know it instinctively.

In order to undermine male power, the women’s movement over the years has set afoot a variety of actions, both large and small, tending to vitiate the identity and agency of men. Indeed, nearly everything which feminism has accomplished has made some contribution to this overall effect.

This “campaign” has cut a gradual, descending swath from the macrocosm to the microcosm, from the political to the personal—striving always toward a finer granularity of control, a greater concision of shades and subtleties in the realm of daily life.

Dry alterations to the fabric of law and the outward form of institutions didn’t satisfy them for long—they thirsted for the essential juice of life, and in particular, the life juice of anything male which crossed their path. The last thing they wanted was a workplace or a world filled with insouciant, free-spirited, self-esteeming men and boys. Something had to be done to correct male joie de vivre and male autonomy.

Men were to be subjugated, but if they didn’t know this, and if they didn’t act like they knew it, then the whole thing would be pointless. It was necessary, then, for the reach of matriarchy to become omni-locational and all-pervading—like the ideological presence of a totalitarian social order.

So, it was and continues to be important to the feminist effort that every possible shred of male identity or agency be appended to the shadow of ideology in some manner. ANY speck of uncolonized male space or male autonomy constitutes a bit of turf still in the grip of patriarchal power. Or at any rate, that’s how they see it.

Case in point: what is a “sensitive male”? For starters, it is a sexist expression in exactly the same way that “good negro” is a racist expression. This is a VERY exact paralell. If somebody employs the term “sensitive male”, or worse, calls you one, then you ought to feel seriously offended.
Beyond that, a sensitive male is simply an emotional puppet whose strings are available for any woman to pull, whenever and wherever. In short, a man curiously lacking in power; a man of abbreviated identity and agency.

Sometimes they will rate you on whether you “know how to cry”. Reason being, that if you know how to cry then it follows that you can be made to cry. That’s what they are really looking for in the long run. And here’s an extra thought that occurred to me: how would you like to be told that “it’s okay to cry” by the very same person who made you want to cry in the first place? You’d be damned if you’d give them the satisfaction, wouldn’t you?

These examples are given because in my opinion they implode the circumference of male power about as far as it can be pushed, at least in the daily realm of social interplay. Even to a point where the drive for control reaches straight into a man’s inner world, breaching a barrier which civil propriety forbids should be violated.

“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall.” Know therefore that your coolness, aloofness, guardedness, your methodological skepticism, or even your native lack of response to certain stimuli which others might find compelling, are all vital elements of your identity. Your agency. Your autonomy. Your… . manhood. In other words, your male power.

Oh, very well then, call it patriarchy!

Ha! And you thought that “patriarchy” was just a one-size-fits-all guilt-o-matic gizmo designed to put men eternally on the defensive while giving women a carte blanche moral advantage in any given situation! Well it is that indeed. But as you can see now, it goes deeper… .

The Difference Between “Sex” and “Gender” by Fidelbogen [Text & Video]

FULL TEXTIn the early days of second-wave feminism, otherwise known as the women’s lib era of the ’60s and ’70s, our superfriends the feminists were keen to inform us that there were no basic differences between men and women. They were very serious about this, too. While they grudgingly admitted that male and female anatomy were different, they wanted us to understand that the difference stopped right there. Men and women were only physically different, and that was the end of it.Their thesis was, to put it simply, that differences in male and female behavior were due to cultural training and nothing more. Such differences, you would say, were merely constructed. Therefore, this school of feminist thinking is known as “constructivism”. It is the “nurture” side of the nature-nurture debate.In opposition was the theory called essentialism, which said that men and women were different in their essence. That is, that they were spiritually or psychologically different for reasons that cultural training could not fully explain.The feminists had their reasons for insisting on constructivism. Overtly, they wanted to open up domains of life opportunity to the female population — the job market and the career jungle, for example. To this end, it was important to knock down any rationale for discrimination against women — and for starters, that meant any biological rationale.But the feminists had more covert reasons for insisting that the sexes were non-physically indistinguishable. These reasons were rooted in feminist patriarchy theory. The feminist narrative, you see, is that women are “oppressed”, and that this state of affairs has persisted for a very long time — thousands of years, by some estimations. According to the feminists, women were forced, by men, to play certain roles in society — wife, mother, homemaker, and so on. And that is why the feminists had to adopt constructivism as their working hypothesis. For if men and women were naturally different in their psychology, they would naturally gravitate toward different functions within the body-politic. You wouldn’t need to “oppress” anybody into doing this.And so, essentialism was anathema to the feminists because it would introduce so many doubts and questions into patriarchy theory as to effectively dismantle it.Finally, the feminists had entirely covert reasons for insisting on constructivism as a working hypothesis. They wished to instill this idea because they wanted to force-integrate men and women not only in work and institutional settings, but in every social space you can imagine. Yet with one exception: if women didn’t want men around, they were free to be man-free. Men, however, were not to be permitted male-only space of any significance. Feminism is rife with such double-standards, but I digress.

Three Men’s Rights Activist bloggers - Kevin Wayne (Underthegoddess,) Paul Elam ( A Voice for Men) & Fidelbogen (The Counter-Feminist) - Get frank and brutally honest in their assessment of three proposed covers for the upcoming reissue of Warren Farrell’s classic Men’s Issues book “The Myth of Male Power.”

Below are the 3 proposed book cover images. You can find the original A Voice for Men blog post on the cover’s here. Kevin’s scathing review of the covers which sparked the Con-tro-ver-see, and the responses by Paul & Fidelbogen, are here.

What the hell join the fun, eh?

Fidelbogen: The Accumulated Wisdom of the Pro Male Community [VIDEO]


Our accumulated wisdom stands opposed to the inbred ignorance of the feminist worldview, which cannot transcend itself without undoing itself. We find, among these people, a fixed purpose to sidestep critical realization – and we draw this conclusion from direct study. We have put our case with logic, lucidity and nuance, we have piled example upon example, and yet we find our effort wasted.

I mean that if you are standing in a rainstorm that fact ought to be directly evident. It should be needless to point out one raindrop after another until you persuade the other chap that it’s raining. Yet the perverse will to sidestep critical realization is invincible, and if he doesn’t want to “see” the rainstorm he won’t!

Visit Fidelbogen at:


Friday, November 15, 2013

Feminism Poisons Women - A Political Statement

The present statement carries a harshly provocative title. That is deliberate, because the title is a hook. Our main purpose is to excite the reader’s anger or curiosity and inspire further investigation. Our secondary purpose is to leave an indelible mark on the reader’s memory, whether the reader agrees with us or not.

So what is feminism, how does it poison women, and what should we do about this? Our statement will involve these and related questions.

Feminism is many things, but for now it will suffice to know that it is antagonistic toward men and all things male. We obtain this knowledge both by long study of objective reality and by reasoning from an irrefutable premise: that feminism is the project to increase the power of women. This leads us to wonder precisely how far the feminist project proposes to increase that power, and we are forced to conclude that the project has no clearly stated upper limit.

The feminist project, then, means to increase the power of women infinitely - and those who would insist otherwise must bear the burden of proof.

To increase the power of women infinitely would naturally make female power clash with male power. Here women would confront a choice - to either rein in their own power or to go on increasing it by overriding male power. To choose the former would terminate the feminist project. To choose the latter would advance the project, but only with a steady erosion of male autonomy.

The erosion of male autonomy could have only one eventual consequence - to establish a subjugation of men along with all of the damaging fallout this would entail. So we conclude that the feminist project, in its unfettered form, could be none other than a campaign of anti-male aggression tantamount to war. We further conclude that this war could only escalate and inflict collateral damage on humanity at large.

Hence, to declare that feminism poisons women affirms that men and women share a social ecology where damage to any part of the system has systemic consequences. To “poison” men - by subjugating them, by denigrating them, by compromising their human rights, by bending them contrary to nature - will generate consequences that ripple through the social ecology and taint the lives of men and women equally. The web of male and female existence is far too interwoven to confine the damage to men alone. You cannot poison merely half of a well.

In the long run, to poison men can only poison women also. Therefore, since our study of objective reality leaves no doubt that feminism indeed poisons men, we may confidently attest that feminism poisons women. However, if you mean to enhance the well-being of women it will not do to poison them.

In the end, we oppose feminism because feminism poisons everyone. So consider the present statement a political rallying call to men and women everywhere who oppose feminism. By our study of objective reality we know that their numbers are considerable and, if the right stimulus be applied, apt to grow.


Fidelbogen Tweets against the White Ribbon Campaign. You should too.

The #Whiteribbon Campaign is a sexist, anti-male hate group which spreads vile propaganda and false cultural narratives. Please re-tweet.
— Fidelbogen (@fidelbogen) December 25, 2013

The White Ribbon Campaign’s Gendered Approach to Domestic Abuse issues

I’m Dreaming of an Anti-White Ribbon Christmas

ACTION ALERT: Fidelbogen has a great campaign going on Twitter that I think we should support. It involves getting at the #Whiteribbon tag on Twitter with a counter-truth bomb campaign. If you aren’t familiar with it, the White Ribbon Campaign is what passes for “Men’s Activism” in Femspeak. One look at the above image says it all: Yet another sexist smear campaign geared towards making men out to be the bad guys in domestic disputes, despite a mountain of evidence that shows Intimate Partner Violence is largely gender-symmetrical.

All of us who hang out in the man-o-sphere/anti-feminist sphere have seen examples of these things. Ad campaigns and public service announcements that make men out to be the heavy. That’s one reason why people such as myself run blogs such as this: to highlight Female criminality, injustice & abuse against men, and Gender-disparity in criminal sentencing that largely lets Female offenders off the hook for the same crime that would likely put a man away for a long, long, time.

Don’t believe me? Check out this list of Female Ephebophiles who have been busted as Sexual Predators in the teaching profession. Ask yourself not just “what are women doing abusing their position of power,” but in each case you review, how long would a man get if he committed the same offense involving a young girl?

You can also read this lengthy article about Female sex offenders on Tru TV. One of the 1st examples listed, that of Pamela Ann Smart, would at 1st brush seem to show some gender equality: She’s serving a life sentence for her crime. But in reading a little further, it becomes evident that the life sentence is more contingent on her manipulating her 15-year-old lover into murdering her husband.

Clearly, White Ribbon is hell-bent on promoting one side of the story. And it’s a story that is easily sold. Most people would respond to a “she hit him too” comment with a rejoinder like “yeah but she only scratched his cheek, he broke her nose!” - As if the severity of the damage done somehow justifies her aggression. It’s only when one takes a look at what women are doing when left alone with those who are more vulnerable then themselves, do we get a clearer picture of how much the human flaws of Original Sin affects us all.

So join Fidelbogen & myself in Favoriting and Re-tweeting his message this Holiday Season. You can do so by clicking right on the image of th Tweet at the top of this blog post or by going here. Let’s dream of a true gender-equality future that doesn’t demonize one side over the other.


* Bob McCoskrie: Why I won’t be wearing the White Ribbon

* Comment on the White Ribbon Campaign []

* Sexist’ image on White Ribbon Day site causes outrage {]

What Shall be the Fate of Gynocentrism? by Fidelbogen

One of Mr. Fidelbogen’s best videos in terms of being sober & realistic. If you listen to only one, this should be the one. Short, but to the point.

Published on Jan 11, 2014 

Further material about gynocentrism v. gynonormativism: