Squash the Cackling Chickens!

Steve Brule of CAFE and videographer and writer for A Voice for Men has some shit to say about patriarchy. Aside from mangling the definition of patriarchy, then denying it exists, and then confirming it exists, he asks the deep dude philosophlolical question:

‘“Gynocentrism” is far more powerful at explaining human history than the “Patriarchy(tm),” can ever pretend to be. Ironically, some thinkers are even pointing out that it is the very gynocentric nature of society that enabled feminism to flourish in the first place. After all, would an oppressive patriarchal society not merely squash the cackling chickens as they hatch? The squawking feminists not only hatched, but were protected, obeyed and given resources, and for over 40 years feminist demands were treated more like commands to be obeyed than requests to be considered.’ ~Steve Brule AVFM Chickenarchy PhiLOLsopher

Yes, why don’t men just kill female infants, uh I mean cackling chickens? WHY CAN’T US DUDEZ KILL THOSE FEMALES?

Remember: there is no patriarchy, just men who call women cackling chickens with a suggestion of femicide.

To clear your nostrils of the stench I give you Baby Bat Burritos





11 thoughts on “Squash the Cackling Chickens!

  1. Patriarchy problem solving through the ages: “How about we just kill all the uppity ones?”
    Fascists? Sociopaths? WTF?

    • Exactly. He says that like it’s never been done before. Yes, it has. The Burning Times targeted women. This is what happens when men don’t read women’s history – they say incredibly stupid things with an air of authority that is so self-aggrandizing, it’s vomit inducing.

  2. Mr. Brule has his take, I have mine. Patriarchal society was indeed set up around women, specifically men’s obsession with sexual access to women, so it could also be called a patriarchic/gynocratic social system, no problem there. But male-dominated society didn’t “protect” women, it protected male sexual access, that’s what Mr. Brule misses.

    But didn’t women have it easy? The benevolent sexism, the chivalry and general affectionate petting some women got was no different from that bestowed on an obedient dog.

    And then there were a few holes in this so-called benevolent protection of women: not all gynocentric owners were affectionate benefactors. Just like the old peasant beats his burro for not wanting to carry the heavy load, women also got quite a lot of being killed, raped and battered by their masters, without recourse. As a “privileged” woman immured in Mr. Brule’s “gynocentric” culture, I can only repeat Simone de Beauvoir’s conclusion in The Second Sex:

    “To forbid her working, to keep her at home, is to defend her against herself and to assure her happiness. We have seen what poetic veils are thrown over her monotonous burdens of housekeeping and maternity; in exchange for her liberty she has received the false treasures of her ‘femininity’. Balzac achieves this maneuver very well in counseling man to treat her as a slave while persuading her she is a queen. Less cynical, many men try to convince themselves that she is really privileged…like the carefree wretches gaily scratching at their vermin, like the merry Negroes laughing under the lash and those joyous Tunisian Arabs burying their starved children with a smile, woman enjoys that incomparable privilege: irresponsibility. Free from troublesome burdens and cares, she obviously has the ‘better part’.
    “True, it is disturbing that with an obstinate perversity — connected no doubt with original sin–down through the centuries and in all countries, the people who have it better are always crying to their benefactors: ‘It is too much! I will be satisfied with yours!’ But the munificent capitalists, the generous colonists, the superb males, stick to their guns: ‘Keep the better part, hold on to it!'”

    To which women are replying, Uh, no. Take your benevolence and shove it.

    And as for Mr. Brule’s logic that patriarchic/gynocentric society obviously privileges women over men since women are reluctantly allowed to struggle for our rights, I can only say of our privilege, it is too much! We will be satisfied with yours!

    • The reason I put this up, aside from the obvious metaphor to femicide, is that Brule is a member of both CAFE and AVFM. I have a real bang coming up soon. I can’t believe someone said it and it was right from the horses mouth. You think CAFE isn’t related to AVFM? That there’s not enough proof? I have it.

  3. I see you are linked with RadFemCentral, HMQ! Congratulations! I have the greatest respect for those blogs, from GenderTrender to Reist to Catherine Orian to Rebecca Mott and so many more, including the elusive Femonade.

    • Great! I rarely have time to see who links me. I admit I’m swamped every day with new information and leads on the MRM so I have ZERO time to see who links me or even read other pieces by women I admire a TON.

      I am familiar with Rebecca and do read her blog. I have also read Gender Trender many times.

      This blog has been up for almost 2 years and it’s amazing how many women I’ve connected with and admire. I only read radfem blogs when I do have time to read feminist work.

      I only sub to radfem blogs and gender critical transfolks.

  4. Rebecca Mott’s blog is brilliant. No one can support legalization of prostitution after reading her blog. And she is a poet, a beautiful writer who connects us with the tragic aspect of prostitution. Gender Trender is a woman warrior. Amazing people, all.

  5. I read this sort of thing from these men and I can’t help but wonder if we women were invaded by a race of demons and that explains it all. Seriously! This is not human.

    I love the bats, though. I adore bats!

  6. What an idiot.

    Of course men kill women. Three women die per day as a result of domestic violence. Even more women are killed from male causes, such as baby girls who are shaken to death by their male caregivers.

    I could turn it around on him and say if we truly live in a society that is gynocentric, then why aren’t women killing men, or even male babies before they can become violent?

    The dude is strong with non-logic.

  7. and for over 40 years feminist demands were treated more like commands to be obeyed than requests to be considered

    The very fact that women have ever had to ask men for permission to be treated like a fucking human being should be proof enough of patriarchy. Men (especially white men) have placed themselves in this authoritative position where they determine who is “worthy” of the same freedoms that they enjoy, but never had to earn; it was just given to them by virtue of being male (and white). You really have to ask yourself… what kind of sick, psychopathic piece of shit believes they should be in charge of granting or “considering” women’s freedoms, as if these things are a tangible commodity that they alone hold the ownership rights to? What does that say about this demographic?

    • Yes.

      Also, in a world not replete with male violence, the humanity of women and girls would be self-evident. Feminism wouldn’t be needed if men weren’t so busy abusing, killing, and raping women for personal gratification and to maintain male power.

      But, as you pointed out, these psychos are oblivious to anything resembling empathy. The closest approximation they can muster is yet more male privilege and male preference, which goes to show how socially stunted they really are.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s