CF Podcast: The Fifth
This latest podcast is about the Redstockings Manifesto, a 1969 feminist document which summarizes in a few quick words nearly everything you need to know about the nitty-gritty of the feminist agenda. Nowadays there is a movement afoot among feminists to magically make feminism "outrun its own shadow", to sweep its feminazi legacy under the carpet, to disengage from its embarrassing past history, to reinvent or re-image feminism in light of what its post-Y2K leaders have publically stated.
But I'm afraid the Redstockings Manifesto is a shadow they'll find hopeless to outdistance! This mission statement called the shots YEARS in advance, and almost everything in it reads like a blueprint that was executed with amazing fidelity in the decades following its publication. Yes, the Redstockings Manifesto has echoed loudly down the corridors of time, and feminists everywhere echo it still today whether they care to admit this or not.
In brief, the Redstockings Manifesto is absolutely quintessential and foundational to the entire feminist enterprise. It is not the skin which the serpent may cast off: it is the serpent itself!
But here is the podcast:
http://www.4shared.com/file/178514886/37d2a2fc/redstockings1.html
This pod is intended as the first in a series that will deal with the Redstockings Manifesto in greater depth. I have dispensed with the music track, and I believe I'll stick to that policy in the future, for seems to me that the message travels more effectively in this spare and Spartan manner.
But I'm afraid the Redstockings Manifesto is a shadow they'll find hopeless to outdistance! This mission statement called the shots YEARS in advance, and almost everything in it reads like a blueprint that was executed with amazing fidelity in the decades following its publication. Yes, the Redstockings Manifesto has echoed loudly down the corridors of time, and feminists everywhere echo it still today whether they care to admit this or not.
In brief, the Redstockings Manifesto is absolutely quintessential and foundational to the entire feminist enterprise. It is not the skin which the serpent may cast off: it is the serpent itself!
But here is the podcast:
http://www.4shared.com/file/178514886/37d2a2fc/redstockings1.html
This pod is intended as the first in a series that will deal with the Redstockings Manifesto in greater depth. I have dispensed with the music track, and I believe I'll stick to that policy in the future, for seems to me that the message travels more effectively in this spare and Spartan manner.
posted by Fidelbogen at 9:29 PM
12 Comments:
"We will ALWAYS take the side of women."
Wow, says it all, doesn't it?
This is the first time I've heard of this. Scary read. Talk about a complete revision of history, to come up with that.
Men have controlled all political, economic and cultural institutions and backed up this control with physical force. They have used their power to keep women in an inferior position. All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women.
Really? Sparta, the end of the Roman Empire, those are just 2 that come to mind that were ruled by women, and look what happened to those.
@Snark,
That is just as much a hate maifesto as the S.C.U.M. Manifesto.
And remember, "not all feminists are like that".
Yeah, right.
"That is just as much a hate maifesto as the S.C.U.M. Manifesto."
Yup. And you're not the only one who hasn't heard of it. Plenty of people haven't.
It needs publicity.
AND. . . the feminists who "are not like that" can very easily put their money where their mouth is by renouncing it in a public way.
Here is Chapter One of 'The Dialectic of Sex', posted online:
http://tinyurl.com/5jcox2
The Redstockings Manifesto is posted all over the internet, but for the record it is also included in the anthology "Sisterhood is Powerful".
(Edited by Robin Morgan, who was a supporter of Valerie Solanas. .)
A copy of "Sisterhood is Powerful" sits on the table next to my computer as I write - about six inches from my hand.
Part 1
First of all, I wanted to say hello to fidelbogen (the best place for theoretical deconstructions of Feminist hegemony); I apologize in advance if the comment is too lengthy or disjointed to be read, but no remedy could do....
"Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives... All men have oppressed women."
This painfully puerile and repugnant adduction is at the heart of all Feminist rapacious rhetoric and is the somber catalyst for all of Feminism's anthology and contingency. Feminists desire to be relegated to the realm of the "Other", as it bequeaths upon them the standing to decry the lascivious logocentric metanarrative of being's power over non-being. To be consigned to the darkness confers upon Feminists the opportunity to repudiate the light as the privileged state of being; they claim it to be the acknowledged and venerated status, which is the symbolic patriarchal dominance, and to ambulate among the lightness is to implicitly rescind the soul of women and the very being of women. While verbally vituperating their supposedly sauntering blindness (being consigned to the darkness, or the "Other"), they can because of this very crepuscule purport any misandric monstrosities and receive be revered bereft of any culpability. Their actions are immured within the tenebrous trees, which with the rustling of their leaves in autumn ensnare the unsuspecting public into the innocuous and the "natural" narrative that is Feminism. They espouse that womanhood is growing; that the leaves appear gilded to those enlightened upon Feminism, as any growth and empowerment of women is a priori just, while the misogynistic world, which wishes to castigate women back into the role of the "Other" are said to see the leaves as brown, to ring the beckoning world with the odor of excrement; this is to defecate upon the soul of women according to Feminists. Upon the glossy and mystical mounds of blackened earth of winter, women's "natural" soul to Feminists is said to hibernate, to revert from the patriarchal passions of the tawdry life, but to see the turbid, airy, and barren grounds as perilous is to repudiate the individuality/moral right of women to conceal herself, and therefore one's desire to rape her, and attempt to force upon her the sunlight's webs of patriarchal prowess designed to make her deign her womb towards your ruddy sinews. And on and on with such nonsensical minutiae.
Essentially Feminism attempts to exhibit the death of women upon birth and the birth of women upon death. For Feminists, to bring the harboring of death upon the light (i.e. to collectively engrave males with the star of culpability) is to give accentuation to the otherwise souls of swarthy mortality of females, and to bring birth upon the darkness (i.e. for women to take responsibility on a localized level for their actions) is to "submit to the patriarchy". Feminism wants us to aver the notion that society has been collectively inculcated with Fichtean idealism at the expense of women. In other words for us to believe that society espouses men as conscious authentic egos, whose sole being is not transpired by its relationship with the object, but that "The I" creates its individuated consciousness (i.e. self consciousness) in the very act of intuiting the world itself. Thus "The I" is the patriarchal society striving to assiduously circumvent its existence relative to the object (i.e. women) in obtaining the "I" by purporting "The I" as presupposed within the very act of acting, and hence totally unrelated from the object. (cont)
Part 2
Also, quite a mirthful line from "The Dialectic of Sex (thanks for the link fidelbogen!):
"That the natural reproductive difference between the sexes led directly to the first division of labour at the origins of class, as well as furnishing the paradigm of caste (discrimination based on biological characteristics)"
This is a palpable attempt to ascribe the inherent/immanent structure of nature with an ego-intentionality of a consciously and nefariously embedded metanarrative.
But to speaking more broadly about the first chapter of 'The Dialectic of Sex':
The chapter seems mainly to conjoin historical materialism and biological dualism while pacifying the affects of historical materialism and accentuating those of the biological binary. The chapter seems to revel in the primordial status of humanity, and flaunt such as the contemporary state. But even from its own text it states rather curtly; "The theory of historical materialism has brought to light some important truths. Humanity is not an animal species, it is a historical reality. Human society is an antiphysis - in a sense it is against nature; it does not passively submit to the presence of nature but rather takes over the control of nature on its own behalf. This arrogation is not an inward, subjective operation; it is accomplished objectively in practical action."
But it does not heed its own teleology, as it continues to expound upon the primordial woes of women in this biological dualism of discrimination, while altogether ignoring the real, practical woes that they wrought upon men as well. But simply to prove (and reprove), I will play along with their premises.
"The biological family is an inherently unequal power distribution. The need for power leading to the development of classes arises from the psychosexual formation of each individual according to this basic imbalance, rather than, as Freud, Norman O. Brown, and others have, once again-over-shooting their mark, postulated, some irreducible conflict of Life against Death, Eros vs. Thanatos....
(1) That Women throughout history before the. advent of birth control were at the continual mercy of their biology - menstruation, menopause, and 'female ills', constant painful childbirth, wet-nursing and care of infants, all of which made them dependent on males (whether brother, father, husband, lover, or clan, government, community-at-large) for physical survival.
(2) That human infants take an even longer time to grow up than animals, and thus are helpless and, for some short period at least, dependent on adults for physical survival.
(3) That a basic mother/child interdependency has existed in thus has shaped some form in every society, past or present, and the psychology of every mature female and every infant."
At the heart of these ideas, is the despondent dependence of women upon men in the form of a logocentric power game. That is to say women define their authentic, visible "being in the world" by modifying their life-denying intentionality toward males, while mollifying life-affirming intentionality towards their egos. In other words, they circumvent the perceived nothingness (and lack of power thereof) by assenting their being to be subsumed in the male. This is a faulty analysis even with their disingenuous axioms presumed; it ignores an important idea that Heidegger pointed out in his 'What is Metaphysics'; that nothingness IS something. That being is entailed within the very concept. Women as entailed within nothingness therefore contain the power equivalent of being by bestowing upon being its own existence (i.e. without non-being, being would not be), yet it is able to cloak itself in nothingness as powerless to make itself seem helpless. Socrates, in his dialogue with Euthyphro said the following:(cont)
Part 3
"And a thing is not seen because it is visible, but conversely, visible because it is seen, nor is a thing led because it is in a state of led, or carried because it is in a state of being carried, but the converse of this. And now I think, Euthyphro, that my meaning will be intelligible; and my meaning is, that any state of action or passion implies previous action or passion. It does not become because it is becoming, but it is in a state of becoming because it becomes; neither dos it suffer because it is in a state of suffering, but it is in a state of suffering because it suffers."
Women are able to envelop their non-being (which is really private being) as immutable and helpless, while at the same time furtively enjoying their equal power. This is to say that men actively suffer to protect women while women are perceived as subsuming their being (and hence draping themselves into non-being) for protection, and hence conjoined with men in the state of suffering wrought on by men's active suffering, while they are simply using their farcical nothingness (which again is simply private being) to act as if they are helplessly in a state of any possible contingency of the intentionality of men's actions. What really happens, though, is that men must actively strive as "somethings" among other "somethings" to perpetuate unto a new state of temporality. Whether this be suffer towards a state of suffering, pleasuring towards a state of pleasure, or crying towards a state of despondency. Women claim themselves to be aimless immutable objects unable to transcend their a priori non-being of the creation of this "state" due to the active intentionality of men's 'being-in-the-world'. But as we have seen women are simply private 'beings' who employ men to actively work within the world of 'public beings', and can simply sidestep any of the negative states wrought by this work, and revel in the positive states wrought on by it. Ultimately women claim their innate need for dependence upon man due to their cold, frigid, moveless state (again, this is deceptive of their actual state), while condemning men for their active sweaty suffering like Tribulation Wholesome reproved of man in Jonson's 'The Alchemist':
"The children of perdition are, oft-times,
Made instruments even of the greatest works.
Beside, we should give somewhat to man's nature,
The place he lives in, still about the fire,
The fumes of metals, that intoxicate
The brain of man, and make him prone to passion.....
What makes the devil so devilish, I would ask you,
Satan, our common enemy, but his being
Perpetually about the fire, and boiling
Brimstone and arsenic?"
All the while claiming to be so innocuously ensnared within their own immanent futility!
And remember, everything I just quoth was upon the presumption of their metanarratives and axioms; their mendacious murmurings could have been reproved in a much more facile manner otherwise. But I wanted to exhibit for the world the theoretically incongruities of Feminist rhetoric.
I could repudiate much more of this chapter (particularly her misbegotten understandings and grievances of Freud, Hegel, and Marx), but it would mostly be delving into the particular errors rather than a cohesive, abstract conceptualization of the foundations.
At any rate, to descry and espy more of this uncouth knavery on display, I urge everyone to read another famous Feminist text, 'The personal is political', by Carol Hansich.
Best regards.
@TM:
Carol Hanisch was a member of the Redstockings Group, along with Shulamith Firestone. . .
---------
Thank you for your substantial essays, TM. I will study them more thoroughly later in the day.
@TM:
I perceive that you are versed in PoMo and similarly recondite academic discourses. . .
"I perceive that you are versed in PoMo and similarly recondite academic discourses"
Actually, I know relatively little of post-modernism. I've only read 'Discipline and Punish' by Foucault and sporadic espying of other post-modernist texts. There's a reason for that; they adduce erroneous ideas as seduction to their disingenuously deduced premises. Many of their writers appear to have a dearth of knowledge when it comes to actual philosophy, and conjure up impetuous derivations from falsely based assumptions upon other philosophers. Let's put it this way; most erudite people would probably derive more from Epictetus than the prevaricative prosaicness that pervades post-modernist pathology.
It seems Feminist trite has become so imbued not only in modern Philosophy, but Literature as well. As someone who loves literature, it is so depressing and upsetting to be inundated with such misandry on a regular basis from feminist "literary critics". I've never seen an mra, or any sort of true gender egalitarian adress this issue. I might have to commence with a blog after all...
At any rate, I hope people were able to derive some worth from my analysis above.
Best regards.
"I might have to commence with a blog after all...
"
Uh..yeah, I'll definitely read it! :O
The oppression of women is a myth.
Watch Paul Elam's video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMzcMATRGmE
When women cry out oppression, it is not the cry of the oppressed.
It is the cry of spoiled brats.
V.A.W.A. is not counter-oppression.
V.A.W.A. is putting women on pedestals - suggesting that violence aimed at women is somehow more of a crime than violence aimed at others.
The whole feminist (et al) legacy is one of spoiled brats spoiling themselves further.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home