Feminism, in the nearly half-century of its systematic cultural revolution, has worked doggedly and persistently to erode male space in every possible form. From the beginning, it has been a central feminist project not only to whittle down the amount of time that men spend together in the absence of women, but to fragment the continuity of such time, to break it into smaller and smaller chunks, and to cast the very idea of it into disrepute.

It is a classic recipe. If you aim to take away the power of a targeted group, you must undermine their solidarity by making it progressively more difficult for them to bond with each other. And if you fragment the continuity of their time together, what bonds they might form will be correspondingly fragmentary, and accordingly ineffectual.

The colonization of male-only workspaces and institutions, under the convenient banner of “equality”, “ending discrimination” or the like, is only the most commonly understood and popularly visible ‘wedge’ manifestation of something that runs far deeper—but the politically motivated double-standard is clear enough when you consider how many female-only clubs, jobs and other settings will pass without a murmur where the male equivalent would soon come under hostile scrutiny or even litigation.

Clearly, the ruling energy in society has dictated that women are welcome to be alone with other women, but that men ought not assemble in the absence of female supervision or female presence in some form. For the colonization of male space means not simply that male-only time has dwindled in quantitative terms, but that qualitatively speaking, the likelihood of female influence or even intervention has proportionately grown, and now throws a shadow over such occasions.

Male space, in a conceptual sense, encompasses many things. Thus, male preserves, domains and “discourses” of any sort whatever are under direct or indirect pressure to, as it were, lower the drawbridge, and admit the circulation of females or at the very least some infused awareness of femaleness in principle.

In the long run, the final frontier of male space is the space inside your male head. So when male space breaks down into small enough pieces, the last chunk to be cracked open will be the sovereign castle of your own mind. By then, the defending forces will barely exist any more, and the besieging forces will hold every possible advantage. Yes, the colonization of male space advances by logical steps to a logical endpoint, which is the colonization of male INNER space.

In the feminist war, men and maleness are under attack. And if men collectively cannot grow a robust, inwardly articulated community of interest among themselves, endowed with durable focal points and folkways, then each man as an individual will be more and more thrown upon his own devices, hence a sitting duck. Hang together or hang separately: such is bonding; such is solidarity.

The feminist campaign of attrition against male space, which operates on so many levels, aims chiefly to weaken men and to strengthen women by building up “womanspace” as much as possible. On the surface, this appears to be an extension of patriarchy theory, and patriarchy, as any counter-feminist will tell you, is merely a feminist codeword for male power of any kind.

Accordingly, the best way to deplete “patriarchy” is to deplete male space, since men cannot effectively “hang together” if they are not together in the first place—they cannot compare notes about their experience; they cannot connect the dots; they cannot “do the arithmetic”; they cannot develop a culture of resistance; they cannot build networks. And being thus separated, it’s a pretty sure bet they will “hang separately”.

At this point, a feminist might chime in with more patriarchy theory, informing us that men and women are alike, that patriarchy forced men and women to assume separate roles in society, and that integrating them into the same social spaces (with interchangeable roles) is how we end 3, 427 years of patriarchal oppression.

But the sheer hypocrisy of actual practice gives the lie to this speech, for no such programme has been followed. Instead, the practice has been to invade male space in order to gain advantage for women, while continuing to ban men if women don’t want them around for any reason.

The view that men and women are non-physically different in a way that cultural training does not explain, is called essentialism. The old school feminists of the 1960s and 1970s were staunchly ANTI-essentialist, and anti-essentialism remains, overtly at least, a critical prop of feminist ideology to this very day.

Anti-essentialism is, let me say it, a scientifically dubious notion. But that didn’t stop certain people from launching a monumental campaign to re-engineer society on the strength of it. They didn’t even blink about what they were doing; they went right ahead and did it anyway because it fit their politics, and because they sold their plan to a passel of idiots who thought it sounded like a cool idea.

But we must reflect on the mass of evidence which favors essentialism. Now is not the time to review this evidence, but trust me, it is a lot. Enough, I dare say, to open an ominous crack, from top to bottom, in the facade of patriarchy theory. For if men and women turn out to be naturally different, then they would naturally gravitate toward different things, yes? And so the idea that men collectively forced women to stay home and clean the house becomes a hard sell.

Once again, women in general (thanks to feminism) were able to invade male space and gain material advantages—jobs, for example—while at the same time banning men from female space if they wished to do so. Meanwhile, the feminist plotters in particular were advancing their deeper agenda of weakening “patriarchy” (to wit, male power) by making it harder for men to be alone together, less likely to pool their observations, less likely to bond, less likely to become political, and less likely to gain solidarity for any purpose whatsoever.

The feminist plan was to destroy the male power structure (“patriarchy”), by colonizing male space. In this project they have been quite successful, although they have no intention of slowing down until they have eradicated as much “patriarchy” as they can possibly get their hands on. For it surely troubles them to see men conferring seriously when no woman is nearby to barge in and, if necessary, derail the proceedings. Feminist hostility toward male space is, in most cases, barely concealed. They fear the growth of cabals and combinations, and their fear is not unjustified.

Now, most men have not conceptualized the loss of male space in terms of a collective deprivation: that is to say, they have not conceptualized it politically. And so men must understand, that the division of male and female space in society is fundamentally a division of power. Male space equals male power, and female space equals female power.

That’s all there is to it.

The feminists jabber on and on about “patriarchal power and control”, but what do they really mean by that expression? I will tell you: they mean men having power as opposed to being powerless, and they mean men being in control as opposed to being either out of control or controlled. In the end, they don’t want men to have power for any reason, and they don’t want men to be in control of anything at all—especially themselves!

Again, male space is identical with male power. The two are one. And the secret of this power is, that it controls nothing but itself. I mean, that “patriarchal” power and control signifies no more, and no less, than power and control within the perimeter of male space.

Simply stated, this means that patriarchal power is not truly about controlling at all. No. Patriarchal power is about not being controlled. Properly speaking, patriarchal power is not even asserted, being rather a passive power—a mighty boulder in the stream which parts the rushing waters, an unmoved mover like unto the god of Aristotle.

Cross this power, and you shall reap the harvest that your own free will has brought upon you. Patriarchal power is only violent in self-defense.

“Only violent in self-defense”. Where have you heard that phrase before?

Yes, we have heard that phrase before. . . haven’t we? And all I’ve got to say is: two can play at that game. I grant you it is a dirty game of reversal—especially when the feminists play it. Still, two can play at that game. No principle of moral equilibrium rules out any such two-way traffic.

So “patriarchal power and control” is, finally, the assertion of equilibrium, integrity and home rule within the realm of men’s business. It is male authority in the foundational sense of local expertise, the pristine autonomy of male space and the principle of undefiled male identity—which at its inmost core excludes female input.

Barring women from male spaces (as with the boys club sign that reads “no girls allowed”) is regrettably apt to be taken for “misogyny” by people of shallow understanding. Yet this will prove unavoidable and, in the long run, a necessary prophylaxis against the growth of ACTUAL misogyny. It is neither evil, nor a “necessary” evil. It is a necessary good.

Feminist ideology, as touched upon earlier, has bequeathed us an anti-essentialist legacy, and this legacy pervades law, public policy, pedagogy, and, to a great extent, even popular culture. The pervasion is regrettable because it means that too much of our common life and common understanding is built on something questionably true at best, if not disastrously wrong. For if we accept that men and women are endowed by their creator with different inclinations, then it should come as no surprise that a social experiment which tries to iron this flat would end in a social train wreck.

All of which is to say, that men and women just might need to get away from each other at times, so that each sex can do what it does best without the other sex throwing a spanner in the works.

But the focus now is on men, so of men I will speak.

Men cannot do what men do best if they cannot work as men among men, unhindered by women. Men cannot follow their natural rhythm, their natural logic, their natural genius and their natural joy, if they must forever accommodate to the alien demands of a different behavioral idiom. This will only slow them down and cripple them, which, unless you have a political reason to encourage such things, is not a good idea.

And upon that note, I turn to the political. The colonization of male space is designed principally to exploit men and to poison their environment, hence their well-being and their existence on every level. And it brings about all of this very simply by robbing men of power—for male power, as we have established, is identical with male space.

The pre-feminist system of life made rational allowance for the natural differences between men and women, and most importantly, allowed for male and female space by mandating separate roles. The feminist system of life has done away with this, and in the process given men the short end of the stick. Men can no longer function optimally AS men (among men), but in addition their political and social power has been cut off at the root in an absolute sense. And this, once again, was part of the feminist plan.

Women are, of course, free. Free to live as they will, to move unencumbered in the world, to taste the bitter and sweet alike from the orchards of life, and even chart their destinies by the stars if it strikes their fancy. They are also free to shoot themselves in the foot, for that, unfortunately, comes with the package. One would not think to interfere with women’s freedom. One would not think to oppress them. One knows them to be capable adults, willing to assume full responsibility for their lives, and willing to embrace equality in the entirety of its aspects. In good faith, one knows women to be on their own.

And a consequence of the feminist plan (whether planned or not), is that men and women are now separate political power blocs, and the idea that they owe any political obligation to one another is a quaint fiction—a vain conceit with no foundation in either morality or objective circumstance. Men, accordingly, are entitled to grab what they can grab, and to look out for their own. Feminism has licensed the same for women, so the demands of symmetry are clear enough.

I call upon men, therefore, to reclaim and reoccupy male space by whatever methods their creative imagination might suggest to them—and those methods might be very, very many indeed.

No need to be coy, Roy. . .

Just DO IT!

You don’t even need a pretext, although at times that can be useful. But there is nothing more to it, than to charter an organization or start a club, and announce very, very openly that you mean for this to be a men’s club. And if you intend to reclaim male space, then why not announce that fact itself very, very openly for all the world to hear. In fact, why not start your club for OPENLY STATED POLITICAL REASONS, and if anybody doesn’t like this, ask them what the hell they plan to do about it?

For example, you could organize a study group with the plainly stated intention of re-establishing patriarchy. You could make this sound tongue-in-cheek. . . or you could make it sound deadly serious—that’s up to you. And you would have leeway in your definition of terms such as “patriarchy”. But whichever way it goes, you would be thumbing your nose at the world and asking people what the hell they planned to do about it.

And really, what COULD they do about it? If they did something really stupid, you would be ready to hit them with a lawsuit. . . wouldn’t you?

I say, you could have great fun all of this, and you could inspire others. . . couldn’t you?

Do you understand the principle of what I am telling you here?

I am saying: TAKE WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY YOURS!

And damn the torpedoes.

Think about that.

Fidelbogen is the author of The Counter-Feminist.