I would like to undertake an interrogational scrutiny of feminism's motivational sequiturs.A.
As the word implies, sequiturs are things which "follow", logically and consequently, from one to the next, with a discernible nexus running through them all. Motivational sequiturs then, are sequiturs of motive—that is to say, stages along an operative sequence decipherable in terms of a unifying goal or ambition.
Feminism's motivational sequiturs lie buried beneath the seeming non-rationality and non-coherence of feminism's outward manifestations.These sequiturs operate at the occulted core of the women's movement. Among such sequiturs, we may discern the following tacit presumptions which embody the vector sum of feminism's seemingly non-rational and non-coherent outward manifestations:
MEN AS A CLASS ARE COLLECTIVELY ACCOUNTABLE FOR A HOST OF VIOLATIONS AGAINST WOMEN AS A CLASS.B.
GIVEN THAT MEN ARE COLLECTIVELY ACCOUNTABLE IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED, THE LOCALIZED
GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF ANY INDIVIDUAL MAN HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE.C.
GIVEN THAT WOMEN ARE COLLECTIVELY VIOLATED IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED, THE LOCALIZED
GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF ANY INDIVIDUAL WOMAN HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE.
If you allow the truth of certain presuppositions embedded in these items, you will see that the items entail each other logically enough in terms of sequence.
Feminism implicitly seeks revenge. Revenge may be named as a goal or ambition which operates, for feminism, as a motivator. But...revenge against WHOM? Revenge for WHAT? Answer: Against MEN, owing to something that "MEN" collectively have done to "WOMEN" collectively. Or so the narrative would have it.
In other words, feminism's revenge is the revenge of one Collective (women), against another Collective (men).
Understand, that under any collectivist scenario, customary models of assessment which presuppose individual identity and agency will necessarily suffer infringement. The actual extent of such infringement will vary to the same extent that collectivism has been embodied in the broader culture. In practical terms, it means that they will push things to a prudential limit - meaning, what they can prudently get away with under the circumstances, often with a barely restrained "champing at the bit" to push things even further.
At a THEORETICAL limit, if women are collectively the "victim", then by the terms of the alien logic in question no PARTICULAR female can be held to account for her behavior—for that would compromise the internal unity of the paradigm.
So in summary, the innocent female Collective cannot (if ostensive consistency were valued) be assembled from particles which are either 1.) guilty, or 2.) morally accountable for themselves in any way.
Note that accountability entails the power to make any moral choice at all—meaning, to be a moral agent. The alternative to being a moral agent is to be a moral robot, an automaton, a toy of some mysterious "fate".
Accordingly, the Innocent Female Collective we are describing cannot but be composed of moral robots. Were it otherwise, it would be inconsistent with its own terms, thereby compromising the internal unity of its paradigm. Understand that we are not presently interrogating the actual truth or falsehood of that paradigm—only attempting to display its internal logic.
So the only way to sustain the paradigm is to abrogate the idea of individual moral accountability altogether. Therefore, by the terms of the Innocent Female Collective paradigm, every woman ipso facto becomes a moral robot. And, I might add, an INNOCENT moral robot - even though it is nonsensical to suppose that guilt or innocence could enter into the composition of a moral robot. But remember, we are only laying out the internal logic (such as it is) of the paradigm. So bear with me.
Must individual accountability as applied to MEN remain in effect? Even though it is nonsensical to suppose that guilt or innocence enters the composition of a moral robot, is it the case that men too are moral robots? Note that a guilty Collective cannot by its nature encompass particles which are even potentially innocent, since to allow even potential innocence defeats the purpose of collective guilt. So it must perforce be the case that men are guilty...but if guilt implies choice, how can such a thing be? It doesn't appear to make sense, but this is emphatically not
my own thinking which I describe, so I am not responsible for that. Thus, it would appear that men are somehow "guilty moral robots". Absurd as that may sound, the collectivist guilt paradigm requires it.
Feminism's paradigm deprives everybody—men and women alike—of moral agency. Is THAT the epistemic consequence feminism wants to live with? Even if it leads feminism into trouble? Even if somewhere down the road this idea becomes a political stumbling-block?
However, I pass that by....
Feminism's motivational sequiturs are continually striving beneath the surface to actualize occult ends through a variety of conflicting means. We have spoken of this elsewhere, as the drive for female supremacy. We have touched upon it also in our discussion of "cognitive fragmentation".
Many things contribute to female supremacy in the long run, even if they are doctrinally conflicting. All that is necessary is for each item to enhance the worldly advantages of women in some manner. When you strip away the truly contradictive bits, you find that the various items share a core agreement insofar as they all point toward the goal of "more for women". Anything that puts women more at ease in any way puts them at an advantage - which in turn makes them more powerful, both personally and politically. And empowerment of any sort cannot but boost women closer to a state of supremacy—or autocracy of the female will, if you will. As a German feminist , Renate Solbach, remarked, "whatever is of use to women is a good thing."
Feminism, for nearly a half-century, has been walking a fine line of respectability. They cannot declare openly their drive for female supremacy—that wouldn't sound very nice. Granted, a few feminists are honest enough to admit this openly—but only a few. A larger number are willing to say incredible things that might seem to condemn men to the doghouse, yet they deploy all manner of wafflebuggery and piddle-paddle to explain why they don't actually mean what they seem to be saying, and that if YOU think they actually mean what they appear to mean, then the fault lies with YOU somehow. Finally, the largest and least vocal number will act innocent and say "I'm not that kind of feminist; I don't hate men; we're not all alike; don't be judgmental!"
Little by little, feminist ideas have seeped into the culture at large—a mainstreaming effect. Alongside of such seepage has come substantive political victory and power gain. Those two things - the seepage and the political gain—are mutually reinforcing and mutually propellant.This has led to an emboldenment of the more radical spirits who, having once tasted the comfort of a growing power base, have made bold to say rash things more openly in the belief that the culture at large is finally prepared to hear such things without raising any fuss about it. And to a certain extent they are correct in this assumption - although they are courting trouble nonetheless.
Even so, when the radfems periodically get ahead of the curve and become too
intemperately overconfident and frankly embarrassing—which they tend to do—we can predict a general movement (on the part of the lessrads) to hustle them out of sight and put a more respectable face on the movement, in order to dampen the suspicions of the world even while feminism's occult machinations continue to creep in the night.
The point is that feminism's motivational sequiturs are always chugging away like an unfailing engine, and always deadly consistent in what they aim to accomplish even when they hide behind a baffling smokescreen of incoherent tendencies and declarations of innocence.
Feminism's occult unity of purpose operates like a submarine, sometimes diving deep and other times surfacing for a spell. We need to recognize it when we see it, and educate the rest of the world to such powers of recognition also.
For example, during the Duke lacrosse affair the submarine broke surface in all of its glory and ploughed the swells many a day in blazing sunlight for all the world to behold...........
Other times, you'd scarcely know it. Perhaps it is only a bit of deck or a periscope that appears, and only for a moment in the murky light.
Finally, there are long spells where we can only rely on counter-feminist sonar—which, happily, is good and getting better! As the war escalates, we'll want to to drop our depth charges with greater and greater precision.
In summary: Feminism strives continually toward the goal of female supremacy, based upon a theory of collective guilt which is philosophically unsound and apt to trigger a paradigm meltdown at some future date. However, feminism manages its affairs rather effectively for the present by generating a cloud of confusion about its activities in order to cloak the advancement of its designs.
Labels: the "real feminism"