Monthly Archives: June 2007

Opinion Policy of This Blog

Point 1:  These are my opinions on  my blog.  This is the truth as I see it.  You don’t have to agree with me, but I DO have the right to speak/write it.  I have the right to observe, deconstruct, analyze, and help people resist manipulation as much as I desire…provided I specify that this is my OPINION.  I will not be held responsible for the behavior or decisions of other people; you will not hold me liable for other people’s actions.

Point 2:  The posts you see on the “comment” sections responding to the posts?  Those are the **opinions** of the people who are writing in.  If I post them, it will be understood that I thought their information was factual and truthful, but I’m not going to spend one million years investigating the veracity of their opinions/research/claims, etc.  If I allow the comment, it **doesn’t automatically** mean I agree with it, but it’s **their** opinion–an opinion I thought fit in well with the purpose of the blog.

Point 3:  If you don’t like my opinions, rebut them on your own blog/website.  You may rebut to your hearts’ content…ELSEWHERE.


1 Comment

Filed under Opinion Policy

An Example of How Propaganda Analysis Can Be Used to Deconstruct PUA Advertising and Methodology

Okay folks!  For today’s post, this is what I’m going to do:  my current writing on this post will be in blue ink and bold lettering; my three posts that I’ve authored from Thinking Girl’s first thread on PUAism will be copied here again in their original black ink and regular print.  My commentary will be in this color and boldness also.

My original three posts are towards the end of Thinking Girl’s first PUA thread, which is on my Blogroll–ergo, I won’t need to post the link.  I will **copy** my posts here, and then begin to comment on them.

 The first post is dated June 21st, 2007, at 12:31 pm:

It is useful to study mainstream PUAism from the perspective that it is *PROPAGANDA.* An extraordinarily useful website resource that I would like to refer people in studying propaganda is the official website of the United States Air Force War College, a.k.a. Air University. Its link is listed in my Blogroll section on my blog, The Feminist Pit Bull. I find its Informations Operations section to be most useful, and the site is surprisingly civilian-friendly and open to the public (within certain limits).

Here I will quote from the Air University website their definitions of propaganda from the Department of Defense: these definitions are useful in terms of identifying origins and makers of propaganda:

“Definitions, from DoD Dictionary
propaganda – (DOD) Any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of any group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.

black propaganda – (DOD) Propaganda that purports to emanate from a source other than the true one.

grey propaganda – (DOD) Propaganda that does not specifically identify any source.

white propaganda – (DOD) Propaganda disseminated and acknowledged by the sponsor or by an accredited agency thereof.

counterpropaganda operations – (DOD) Those psychological operations activities that identify adversary propaganda, contribute to situational awareness, and serve to expose adversary attempts to influence friendly populations and military forces.”

Fellow feminists and feminist allies, we are engaged in what the Department of Defense would consider **counterpropaganda.** I want to emphasize heavily that propaganda and counterpropaganda is not limited to the military and political worlds; we are increasingly engaged in a world where ***propaganda has been brought down to the individual level.*** There are many types of marketing and mass communications that can be honestly be thought of as propaganda, and they are worthy of research and analysis; AdBusters to me seems like one hell of a good source, and there are numerous educational websites and blogs on propaganda; believe it or not, the Air University site has some **wonderful** links to *many* civilian sites; it’s a worthy resource, even if the Air Force is at Papa Doc Bush’s beck and call.:(

What I will do is submit this comment and submit another talking about the use of *one* of the techniques of propaganda that I view PUA sites as using quite heavily.

I was surprised when I looked at this Department of Defense dictionary definition of what it was that feminists are doing on Thinking Girl’s thread…it *IS* counterpropaganda!  I believe that this is the major reason why Thinking Girl and other feminists on this thread are getting so much flak…because essentially, without realizing it, **we mounted a counter-propaganda operation.**  The mainstream patriarchal PUA voices have been dominating the dating discussion for many men in the United States and the Western world…and, without **initially** realizing it, we’re challenging their discursive hegemony on attraction and “seduction.”

My second post, dated June 21st, 2007, 12:42 pm:

From the website wwwDOTpropagandacriticDOTcom

is a listing of the most common techniques used in propaganda, although these are by no means the only ones. I will list them as follows:

2)glittering generalities
6)”plain folks”
8) fear

The website further divides these common techniques into three catagories and lists them as follows:

Word games
glittering generalities

False connections

Special Appeals
“plain folks”

Prior to analyzing the technique of transfer to the front page of a PUA website, I will ask you, dear reader, to please read through the quoted paragraphs from the “transfer” section of the Propaganda Critic website: it helps to thoroughly identify and define what the transfer technique of propaganda IS. **THEN** we will begin analyzing the use of the transfer technique in its application in my next post.

A valid criticism of my post is, “Well, why couldn’t you have just *paraphrased* the transfer technique instead of simply copying the text from the Propaganda Critic website?”  That would be a good point…but I’ve always been distrustful of the paraphrase.  Unless done very carefully, points and words can and do get distorted in the simplification.  I want my readers (and myself) to **really** understand the techniques; it is just better policy to let the information stand **as is.**  

“You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorn. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold! — William Jennings Bryan, 1896

“Transfer is a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept. For example, most of us respect and revere our church and our nation. If the propagandist succeeds in getting church or nation to approve a campaign in behalf of some program, he thereby transfers its authority, sanction, and prestige to that program. Thus, we may accept something which otherwise we might reject.

In the Transfer device, symbols are constantly used. The cross represents the Christian Church. The flag represents the nation. Cartoons like Uncle Sam represent a consensus of public opinion. Those symbols stir emotions . At their very sight, with the speed of light, is aroused the whole complex of feelings we have with respect to church or nation. A cartoonist, by having Uncle Sam disapprove a budget for unemployment relief, would have us feel that the whole United States disapproves relief costs. By drawing an Uncle Sam who approves the same budget, the cartoonist would have us feel that the American people approve it. Thus, the Transfer device is used both for and against causes and ideas.” (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938)

When a political activist closes her speech with a public prayer, she is attempting to transfer religious prestige to the ideas that she is advocating. As with all propaganda devices, the use of this technique is not limited to one side of the political spectrum. It can be found in the speeches of liberation theologists on the left, and in the sermons of religious activists on the right.

In a similar fashion, propagandists may attempt to transfer the reputation of “Science” or “Medicine” to a particular project or set of beliefs. A slogan for a popular cough drop encourages audiences to “Visit the halls of medicine.” On TV commercials, actors in white lab coats tell us that the “Brand X is the most important pain reliever that can be bought without a prescription.” In both of these examples, the transfer technique is at work.

An interjection here:  I’ve noticed that many mainstream PUAs very much like to dress their arguments in the “science” of “evolutionary biology,” clothing their rationalizations of patriarchy in pseudo-scientific drapery.  I’ve also noticed that their “scientific arguments” are pretty selective:  you hear a lot about evolutionary biologists whose views justify the patriarchal, aggressive promiscuity of early man, but you **sure as Hades** don’t hear  about other evolutionary biologists whose views might ameliorate or contradict the former.  Now, you could argue that current patriarchal behaviors **must be** rooted somehow in evolutionary biology, how else do you explain patriarchy’s universal presence on the planet?  This is a **valid** argument, but considering that we now know that there are only 30,000 total human genes, it is **equally** a valid argument that patriarchy may just quite simply be one **heck** of a lot more environmentally-caused than we care to admit!!

(Source of human gene information:

Also, do we look at a patient **riddled** with cancer cells and declare, “Thus it ever was from the beginning; this is how it’s **meant** to be.”  See how well THAT argument goes over with an oncologist trying to save someone’s life. 

Gives you pause, doesn’t it?   

These techniques can also take a more ominous turn. As Alfred Lee has argued, “even the most flagrantly anti-scientific racists are wont to dress up their arguments at times with terms and carefully selected illustrations drawn from scientific works and presented out of all accurate context.” The propaganda of Nazi Germany, for example, rationalized racist policies by appealing to both science and religion.

Note how many neoconservative positions that are blatantly sexist make an appeal **also** to both science and religion.   

This does not mean that religion and science have no place in discussions about social issues! The point is that an idea or program should not be accepted or rejected simply because it has been linked to a symbol such as Medicine, Science, Democracy, or Christianity.

True enough!  However, I’m **tired** of people appealing to biased, slanted science that doesn’t take into consideration opposing viewpoints.  That’s part of the reason why I’ve developed such a knee-jerk reaction to the symbol Evolutionary Biology.  Nonetheless, I’ve seen evolutionary biological arguments that were quite good…but almost always, they’re **nuanced** and **sophisticated,** not rationalizing and with an agenda you can spot a mile away.

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis has argued that, when confronted with the transfer device, we should ask ourselves the following questions:
In the most simple and concrete terms, what is the proposal of the speaker?
What is the meaning of the the thing from which the propagandist is seeking to transfer authority, sanction, and prestige?
Is there any legitimate connection between the proposal of the propagandist and the revered thing, person or institution?
Leaving the propagandistic trick out of the picture, what are the merits of the proposal viewed alone?”

The third post, dated June 21st, 2007, at 1:30 pm.     

OK, for the purpose of simplifying analysis today, I recommend (if you wish, dear reader) that you open up another window of your browser and bring up this PUA website **along** with this thread, so that you can see what I’m critiqueing as you read my post. The website you want to bring up is

(I did this originally on TG’s thread in order to avoid attracting spam to her site.  Here, though, on my own blog I’m providing the link.)

and you will instantly get the front page. This is the specific page I’m critiqueing for the use of transfer technique in propaganda.

What I detect is the use of three major memes and approximately three minor memes in the transfer technique of propaganda. The three major memes I detect for transfer are Sexuality, Mastery, and Science (gender psychology). I will begin my analysis as follows:

If you look up in the upper left-hand corner, you will see the title of the website, the Mystery Method. In smaller print underneath it you will find the sentence (I believe it’s called the tagline?) “Put beautiful women under your spell.” Immediately you see the use of the memes Sexuality and Mastery. To put someone under your spell is to dominate them: you’ve got them *right* where you want them. “That someone” is the beautiful woman. Look over at the far right of the page:

You will see a picture of a young, beautiful Caucasian woman with brown hair, red highlights, a revealing red dress, and a double-string of pearls. She is looking over her left shoulder with her face partially-obscured by hair, with her face tilted slightly downward; her right hand is located on her left shoulder, and her index finger is placed on her lips in a gesture traditionally evocative of silence. The image breathes beauty, sexuality, submission, and mystery-the veritable image of the Desirable Other that the artist and webdesigner imagine all men to want. Here the memes are Sexuality and Mastery (there is also a meme of Mystery, but one can argue that this in fact is secondary).

The drawing of this female is meant to transfer these memes; it does so very well. BUT-this is not the only area on the front page that is engaged in transferring!

Note the opening blurb:

“The Mystery Method
Learn the Rules of Attraction
*We are the Mystery Method: the notorious step-by-step system to meet, attract, and seduce or date beautiful women that anyone can learn and that GUARANTEES results.”

Just this one opening blurb is *laden* with transfer technique; I believe I’ve identified six memes already in this opener.

1st meme: Science/(gaming): “Rules of Attraction” (arguably, also reminds one of “Rules of Engagement,” doesn’t it?)

2nd meme: Outlawry/Rebel Aura: “notorious” (because who wants to play by the *societal* rules?)

3rd meme: Mastery: “step-by-step system” (Because practice and sequential learning makes the *master*:

4th meme: Sexuality: this one’s obvious: “meet, attract, seduce or date beautiful women”

Note on the analysis of the 4th meme: note how you seduce OR date beautiful women. Note how the implication is that you can’t do BOTH with the same woman, which hints at the “if you can get her in the sack on the first date, she ain’t worth having” mindset.

5th meme: Populist/The People/Everyman: “that anyone can learn.” The seductive meme here is that this is open to Joe Average and John Doe.

6th meme: Security/Sure Bet: “…that GUARANTEES results.” The meme here is that this system is fool-proof and surefire. In some ways, this may be the most important meme, for the following reason:


Please scroll down to the bottom of the webpage: you will see listed there the section for “Upcoming Events.” There are two basic programs listed: the Comprehensive Boot Camp and the Breakthrough Comfort programs. There is a section for “Availibility” (which obviously changes rapidly and could certainly create an urgency within the viewer to sign up BEFORE THE PROGRAM GETS FILLED!). Most importantly, look over to the far right of the page underneath the “Price” and “Deposit” sections. The lowest price is for 950 DOLLARS-that’s a ****minimum**** price for deposit, although the “Breakthrough Comfort” programs **are** “only” 950 dollars.

I want to contrast this with the inexpensive price of Alan Currie’s Mode One book, which is 19-something dollars plus tax and perhaps shipping and handling.

This was my “a-ha” moment, when I realized that while they might not be the *primary* targets, that men were *also* getting preyed on by mainstream patriarchal PUAism.  In fact, back on TG’s second PUA thread, someone made the **very** valid observation that men are the **primary** targets and women are the **bait.**  I tend to thing of women as the “primary” targets (Hades, we’re even called “targets,”), but a very good argument is that this could easily be a case of misdirection and deception on the part of PUA gurus.  Sure.  When hunting, we don’t alert the deer, now do we?

This is a **lot** of dough required by the Mystery Method for men to be spending in order to have a sex life. While mainstream PUAism preys on women, don’t ever doubt that it doesn’t prey on men too-it uses their hopes, dreams, angers, sense of existential powerlessness, the subsequent craving for power, loneliness, and frustration to empty their wallets. Do the techniques work? Sure-in the hands of someone who’s willing to be manipulative. And in turn, the men who are willing to manipulate women into bed are **also** getting manipulated out of their hard-earned cash, and, IMHO, their ethics and morals. The question we have to ask ourselves as peoples and as a civilization is if this is something that we really want to participate in. Jesus said, “What profits a man to gain the whole world if he loses his soul?”

Do we really think we can buy sexuality, beauty, power, and mastery? Do we think that we don’t hurt ourselves when we are willing to spend exorbitant money-money that could be used to invest and save, money that could be used for charity, money that could be used to build, invent, create-on learning how to control other people to get sex and banish loneliness? I realize that these sound like rhetorical questions, but I’m hoping that people ***really*** ask themselves these things.

The increasing atomization and lack of social connections in my opinion is rendering our society, both men and women alike, much more vulnerable to manipulation and propaganda appealing to the “get laid quick” and “find someone NOW” urges that many of us have to struggle with daily.  One solution will be and must be the restoration of community and social ties to our culture…but that’s not the focus of the blog.  Another solution that we can and must implement along with the restoration of community and sociality is CRITICAL THINKING.  We must–for our own integrity, morality,  mental health, and viability as a civilization!–start teaching and practicing critical thinking.  It is time for Joe and Jane Westerner to avoid falling for propaganda offering ecstasy predicated on manipulation and control,  promises that prey on the increasing feeling of powerlessness that permeates our society.   PERIOD.


Filed under Uncategorized

A little note: I fixed the link to the Persuasion Analysis website.

My dear readers,

You should be able to–with no problem!–go read Professor Hugh Rank’s outstanding website.  I think you will learn a tremendous amount of information on how to recognize–and thus short-circuit–manipulative and dishonest communications.  Enjoy!


Filed under Personal Progress

Thank you for your patience

Thank you for your patience in waiting for my next posts.  I apologize for how long this took, and I had a problem I had to clear up.  All cleared up though:  happy to report that.  Thank you for bearing with me; I appreciate your support.:)  I’ll be doing some **MAJOR** posting tonight.  I’ve discovered propaganda analysis as a fitting tool for resisting PUAism.

Leave a comment

Filed under Personal Progress

Why I am a Christian: My Story, Part 1

 Before faith came, we were held in custody under law, confined for the faith that was to be revealed.  Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian for Christ, that we might be justified by faith.  But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian.  For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus.  For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise.  Galatians 3:  23-29, New American Bible translation.

I promised God that one out of every ten of my posts on this blog would be dedicated to witnessing for my faith in Christ.  These posts will be under the catagory of “Christianity:  My Journey,” and if visitors and posters to this blog choose not to read these items, that’s fine.  But I have promises to keep…


Where to begin?  Oh, where do I begin?  What led me to be a Christian?  How could I possibly begin?

Maybe I’ll begin with what *didn’t* lead me to Christ.

I grew up in a family of a stay-at-home mother,  breadwinner father, and children.  I will not go into explicit detail because this is how people get stalked over the Internet; disclosing too many details gives cyberstalkers an “in.”  However, I will say this:  my family was about as unhappy, dysfunctional, and nasty as you could get before becoming Lois Jurgens-level awful.  Alcoholism, wife-beating, and child abuse and neglect reigned in the family.  Truthfully, we weren’t really a family, more a collection of individuals drowning in a maelstrom of chemical dependency, hate, torment, and chaos.  I grew up to be one hell of an unhappy little girl, and I saw the ugliest gender dynamics you could possibly imagine.  I didn’t witness any marital rape, but I saw one hell of a lot of violence that my father perpetrated on my mother.  My brother and I were also on the receiving end of a lot of abuse and neglect by my mother.  I found myself walking around when I was eight or nine actively wishing that I had never been born, and one of my brother’s second-grade teachers reported to my mother that my brother had stood up in front of the classroom and said, “Nobody loves me; nobody cares.” 

Have I set the stage to explain why I became so escapist?

Because I really did become one.

Some children will lash out at the world around them when abused and neglected.  My tack was the opposite.  I chose to become very withdrawn, and I escaped into my own little world.  I didn’t have any social skills worth a damn, and I was picked on and ostracized at school–with very few friends.  I read books incessantly, didn’t want to go out and play too often, and holed up in my room whenever I could.  The library was a refuge for me, and at one point it was turning into a home away from home, particularly during the summer.   Life just didn’t seem worthwhile outside of a book, and I lived to escape life.  There is a very thin line between self-pity and depression, and as a kid I was incessantly going back and forth over the line all the time.  Even now I struggle with figuring out the difference between legitimate grief for a childhood I never had versus just wallowing in “poor me-ism.”  Yeah, I know, poor baby.:D  I don’t pretend to think I have a “plight,” not now.   But we all have to struggle with our inner demons, and mine are typical of the millenium-era white upper-middle class order:  depression and a dysfuntional family of origin.  Among others.

So here I was, tooling around at age 8 or 9, and looking for something to escape to, something to make my life better.  When I walked home from school or around my small town, I used to pass a little Baptist church.  I walked there pretty frequently, and I got very curious.  I began to ask my mother and father if I could go to Sunday school.  My mother, who had been brought up in a highly religious family with many kids and who was by denomination a Methodist, was quite pleased, and said “yes.”  So I began going, every Sunday.

Sunday school was my first real experience with religion.  I had a smattering at home; my mother and I used to watch the Billy Graham television crusades together, and she taught me the Lord’s Prayer.  But Sunday school took it to a whole new level.  I quickly became “churched,” going every Sunday to the classroom in the Baptist church for lessons.  It was exposure to social situations, and it was exposure to caring, loving Sunday-school teachers who were teaching faith to kids.  By all accounts, it should have been the healthiest thing for me.

The problem is that it wasn’t.

I’m of the opinion that one should be very, very careful just *how* religion is taught to kids.   You never know just what highly suggestible child from an abusive/neglectful home riddled with domestic violence is looking more for an escape than a relationship with the Divine. 

I quickly turned into a little religious addict; I turned to a religion to self-medicate my pain.  The problem is that the religion I was learning didn’t bring me close to God or bring me to the reality of Jesus Christ–in part because too much emphasis was placed on Biblical literalism and legalism and not enough on experiencing the reality of the Lamb of God.   I learned the wrong things about God–learned that he was a vengeful, cruel God who punished people at the drop of a hat.  I learned that if you didn’t do things exactly the way He told you to and be “born again,” you would burn in hell forever.  I learned that God was male and that husbands had the right to boss wives around, and that if women didn’t obey, they weren’t pleasing God.  Needless to say, the emotional ramifications for me were ugly; I swore even as a little girl that if God really wanted wives to obey husbands, that I would never, ever get married so that I wouldn’t have to be under the thumb of a man.  (Now at age 44, I think I can smile at my subconscious mind in amusement and tell it that marriage isn’t a Divinely-ordained threat to autonomy for women and that the little Baptist church had it wrong.:) )  I learned that I wasn’t good enough as a human being, that I was born with original sin, and therefore I was “evil.”  No one had explained to me the concept of hamartia as the human condition that was meant in the New Testament as the *original sin* we’re all born with–translating literally as “to be without a share in,”  “missing the mark,” a tendency to misperceive and *not* hit the goals of holiness or to *not* have holiness.  Note that this is a far cry and concept from being born evil, but this isn’t what I–and probably the other kids in the Sunday school–weren’t getting.  That was a big chunk of the problem.   

I learned to interpret the Bible literally and unquestioningly, to take it word-for-word, just as it says–a recipe for disaster in the mind and heart of a child.  I know that the Sunday school teachers were trying to teach us that God loves us unconditionally; I remember that we would all sing, “Jesus Loves the Little Children of the World,” the refrain still humming in my ears sometimes:  “Red and yellow, black and white/they are  precious in His sight/Jesus loves the little children of the world.”

But that was only part of the hymn.  Another part of the hymn was, “Jesus wants the little children, to be careful what they do/ Honor father, mother dear /Keep their hearts so full of cheer/ Then he’ll take them home to glory by and by.” 

And quite possibly, this is what screwed me up in my little Baptist church more than anything. 

My parents weren’t parents in the true sense of the word; they were two alcoholics, battering husband and battering wife–neither one of them qualified or able to parent.  Both of them were abusive to us kids or highly neglectful; neither one of them was present for us in the way that children need their parents to be present.  We really didn’t have  a mother or father, not in the true sense of the words.  And “honoring” your parents in those days meant obeying them to a “t” and not questioning *anything* they did–a recipe for psychological disaster when dealing with alcoholics.

The cognitive dissonance that was created between being taught by Sunday school to obey and honor my parents (or Jesus won’t take you to glory!) and experiencing the chaos in a family with two chemically-dependent non-parents was something my young mind couldn’t handle.    I couldn’t satisfy the religious demands of my church and be a dutiful daughter without playing a major mind game on myself.  I couldn’t tell the truth to myself and be who the adults in my life thought I should be.  I went into denial, day-dreaming, and escapism as my way of coping.  In other words, I had to lie to myself so thoroughly that I couldn’t see the real truth of what was happening in my family. 

The problem is, of course, is that the more you lie to yourself, the less experience of the Living Water you’ll have.          


Filed under Christianity: My Journey, Uncategorized

Advice: If you get a chance, go through the Persuasion Analysis website

Seriously, it’s extremely educational!

One of the things I’ve noticed is that not only are the terms of Propadanga easily identifiable, anyone with a good knowledge of PUAism (a.k.a. seduction methods) also readily pick up on PUA methodology being easily classified as a subset of propaganda–or at least uses many methods recognizible as having their origin in propaganda.

 More on this tomorrow, folks!


Yours, Scarred the Feminist Pit Bull


Filed under Personal Progress

Update on Blog Site Progress

“If you build it, they will come.”

It appears to the casual reader that I haven’t been building my blog, and for this I apologize.  However, *I* have been doing a lot of online research and exploration of topics, and I’ve added several blogs and websites to my Blogroll.  There are three that I would like to point you towards.  Site 1:  Richie Pilbeam’s “Crimitism” blog.  If you haven’t read it, it’s a MUST.  Richie is a hard-hitting, Australian male feminist who’s as good a word gunslinger as you’re going to find in the blogosphere.  I invite you to read a sample of Richie’s hard-as-nails dissection of the New Patriarchy as he takes on “The Alphabet of Manliness:”

 Read it, and savor it.  IMHO, it doesn’t get much better than this:  “Most people do think women are nags, men are inherently violent, goths are boring, and Garfield is a bit shit. People want to be told these things. People also want to believe that they’re the centre of the universe, and the only person with the guts to call a spade a spade, so if you can dress the same material up as a way of sticking it to the man, it’s no surprise that your website will end up more popular than Pepsi’s. It’s just Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus‘ angsty younger brother who wears an ironic Godzilla t-shirt.”  Or, how about this? 

[In a world where metrosexuals–stylish, well-groomed, and sharply dressed men–have taken the center stage in defining the new masculinity, small pockets of men are starting to emerge, rebelling against the status quo.]

[- Maddox, in his introduction to the book on] (Richie here quotes Maddox from his introduction to the “Alphabet of Manliness”)

“Fun fact of the day #2: Metrosexuality is, and has always been, a choice. Men’s right to be a slob is not under threat because of Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, and describing metrosexuality as ‘the status quo’ just because it’s visible is so ridiculous I don’t know where to begin. There’s no genuine social pressure on every man out there to spend / waste his money on wax, cosmetics and firming lotion, and if he chooses to do so, we call him a metrosexual to differentiate him from the majority. And you can take ‘metrosexual’ as a byword for ‘fag’ or ‘poof’ or ‘himbo’ if you want, but it plainly isn’t just a euphemism; it’s a positive word that implies metropolitan sophistication and sexual potency. There’s no equivalent word for a woman who rejects the look of the female majority. They’re all insults. This whole ‘Reclaim your manliness!’ bollocks would be cringeworthy even without the misogyny, homophobia and ape-pack mentality that always accompanies it.”

 Ha-HAH!  Go, Richie, go!  I couldn’t have done any better myself…

Site 2:  Persuasion Analysis, Dr. Hugh Rank’s contribution to analysing propaganda and advertising.  His website is easy to navigate and extremely educational; so far, it’s the best one that I found of its kind, although I haven’t exhausted the Internet by any means.   As a sample of his efforts, check out the link I’m providing here:

He does a cagey analysis of the Bush Administration, Dr. Rank does–yes indeed!

“About 1980, when I originally wrote the section on war propaganda, Osama bin Ladin was being supported by the CIA in Afghanistan in its war against the Soviet Union. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was being supported in its war against Iran by the US. Neither of these wars then was on my mind which was centered primarily on the patterns of rhetoric of previous European wars. A decade later, the “Cold War” was over when the USSR disintegrated. Two decades later, Bush proclaimed the “war on terrorism” and linked our old friends, Osama and Saddam, as co-conspirators. Frankly, I do not know specifically who our friends and enemies will be twenty or thirty years from now. But, I think these patterns I’ve observed in the past will appear in the future.”  (From the above-mentioned article entitled, “Bush Bashing?” on Dr. Rank’s “Persuasion Analysis)

 And then finally, I decided to get a little spooky and daring.  I decided to provide a link to the US Air Force’s Air War College site “Cyberspace and Information Operations Study Center.”  The site *is* surprisingly open to civilians, so I decided to provide the link to my readers as an opportunity for them to read about psychological operations, psychological warfare, mass persuasion, etc.  You will notice that if you examine this site carefully,  it does have a section on Neuro-linguistic Programming.  To those who say NLP doesn’t work, I say beware:  the military doesn’t generally waste time on ineffectual methods.  Anyone who thinks NLP is mere sleight-of-hand or doesn’t work is laying  him/herself open to manipulation…


What I’ve decided to do with my blog is this; rather than not post *anything* on my blog publicly while working on big long essays, I’ve decided to do reasonably short public posts on my blog *until* I get my essays finished and *then* post them on the blog.  This way the blog is active, there’s more reason for my readers to check back frequently to see what I’ve written, and hopefully I can engender some really lively discussions serving as springboards to other research/essays/methods of resistance.   I *am* working on Part 2 to “On PUAs, Mind Control, and Patriarchy,” but it’s slow-going because I have to get some of the Vance Packard writings, which will not be republished until late July.  Ergo, I’m (hopefully) doing the sensible thing by concentrating on doing daily posts and other essays in the meanwhile.

I’ll write again tomorrow–until then, remember: 


Yours, Scarred the Feminist Pit Bull


Filed under Personal Progress