More About Feminism and the State
"Let us consider the feminist mantra, the personal is political. This is the most illiberal political statement imaginable. According to this statement, personal freedoms are effectively to be subjected to political demands. When the personal becomes political, the political becomes personal. . . .Ah yes . . ."the personal is the political"—first formulated by Carol Hanisch of the Marxist Redstockings Group. That maxim is an old friend dear to our hearts, is it not? Certainly, the thought that feminism is totalitarian has circulated in the pro-male buzz mill for a good long while. Yet in my opinion the blogger ties the threads together more elegantly than most. Snark expands upon his theme here:
"Feminism penetrates the political into every facet of personal life; and in every facet of personal life, they claim to find women being oppressed. Through this machination, men can be portrayed as the enemy in every facet of life. It is no longer about women being denied the vote. Slowly but surely, every potential meeting point between men and women in their private lives has become a battlefield in which feminists insist women must fight . . . Their goal is not equality, it is female victory. . . They will gladly throw innocent men under the bus if it means guilty women may go unpunished. . . ."
"Feminism actively calls upon the state to extend its jurisdiction deeper into the personal lives of its citizens. In effect, this involves getting men to bully and control other men, in the name of women's rights. It is not only because the men who represent the state give women the benefit of the doubt that they engage in this; the state itself reciprocates. In return for complying with the totalitarian demands of feminist ideology, the state's dominion is extended. The state can control more and more of the lives of individuals."I have long concluded, and most pro-male partisans would concur, that the women's movement would have stalled on the runway without male support. There is nothing like that good old patriarchy to lend a strong hand when you really need it, eh? Yes, men have pitched in for feminism—and mightily!
And who is now enforcing the political will of feminism? For the most part, men! Women on their own could never have made the necessary modifications to the social machinery, nor could they ensure that the machinery thus modified would be correctly tended and kept in motion. Male cooperation was and is required to set things rolling and keep things rolling. If men collectively decided to wreck feminism they would need only assert their collective will and women, feminist or otherwise, could do precious little to stop them.
If feminism not only stays in business but continues growing, it can only happen because men are letting it happen. Even more perplexing is that if women are now becoming more powerful than men, then once again, it can only happen because men are letting it happen. Male power itself is letting women grow more powerful than men! And the lesson is what? It is, that no matter how far feminism (read: female supremacism) advances upon this earth, men as a group need only throw down their tools and stand up straight, and that would be the end of it!
And yet men are not doing this. Instead, they are submitting to vile treatment and sucking it up like punks! WHY?
Because some men are bullying and controlling other men in the name of women's rights, by giving women the benefit of the doubt. In other words, some men are oppressing other men by acting as feminist enforcers. And those men are at the top of the male pecking order in a feminized state; they've secured a very lucrative racket for themselves and they aren't about to give it up.
As for giving women the benefit of the doubt, you'll see that occurring in a thousand ways, and they've got a structured rationale to validate such proceedings. It is a worldview called patriarchy theory, and it says: "women as a group are oppressed by men as a group, so when in doubt we must assume that the man has violated the woman and not the reverse, for only in such manner can equity be redistributed and equality be restored."
If you belong to the feminist enforcer group of males, you are living according to the playbook which patriarchy theory provides. Therefore you will feel perfectly entitled, in your own mind, to bully and control other men in the name of women's rights, and to believe any parasitical or criminally-inclined female who might point her lying finger at some unfortunate fellow. And since you are living in a feminized state, you will be pragmatically clever to follow such rules because you will likely be rewarded for doing so.
It is not for nothing that we call such people collaborationists.
As a feminist enforcer you will, moreover, want to sing that party anthem loudly and wave that party flag vigorously and wear that white ribbon feelingly, and miss no opportunity to let the world know of your deeply personal empathic resonance with women's issues! And you'll want to keep a sharp lookout for MRAs and other misogynistic scumbags who seem to care more about their own thoughts and feelings, who refuse to sing that song or wave that flag or wear that ribbon or, heaven help us, don't give a good goddamn about domestic violence awareness month!
To summarize: male power is divided against itself because certain men have concluded a power-sharing arrangement with feminism, and with the femplex at large. Owing to this arrangement, the bulk of men (who are also politically in the dark about what is happening!) are getting kicked to the curb relative to women—who are gaining ascendancy on every front. And paradoxically. . . . male power itself makes this possible. Certain men wish to see it happen and have the power to make it happen—at the expense of other men!
In the end, we find two factors at play: a power division among men, and the political ignorance of men. That brings me to the concluding, and most original, point of interest in Snark's post—captured in the following:
"But a powerful lobby group which captures the public's hearts and minds, and gives the state carte blanche to extend indefinitely, has opened Pandora's box. While the state, with no particular ideological affinity with feminism (only a pragmatic affinity, as described above), believed it could ultimately keep feminism under control, so the feminist movement believed the same about the state. The feminist movement was wrong. Once the state achieves a certain level of power, helped there by the feminist movement itself, it becomes far too unwieldly to be controlled by feminism any longer. It becomes too big, too powerful, and too self-interested to follow the demands of the lobby group, which, from the lofty heights of the state as it continues to inflate, is looking smaller and smaller as it fades into the distance below."The author's thesis is that the state will go its own way, and that feminism will be helpless to stop it. The author predicts that the state will legislate in the direction of equality for men, and seek to extend its power more and more in that direction in order to augment the sum total of its power—since the nature of the state is to grow continually by creating more laws and more apparatus pertaining to those laws.
Well I'm not so sure about this. It appears to me that the present anti-male apparatus is far too profitable for certain deeply entrenched groups to let it go without a fight. Consider that half the population (men) is now effectually disenfranchised from equal citizenship and reduced to a condition more and more approximating peonage. And how came this about? It came about by dint of relentless and unethical lobbying on behalf of women—thanks to which women now possess, by law, a deadly power to destroy men's lives. This amounts to an anti-male police state, with the entire female population drawn into service as potential enforcers.
The point being that men and women are, to borrow a feminist expression, "unequal". This inequality is in women's favor and furthermore it is entrenched in state apparatus. On account of all this, the state is perfectly situated to suppress the most formidable and potentially revolutionary half of the human race (men) by using the more passive half (women) to render it helpless. This machination is a stroke of evil genius for which all of human history—to my own knowledge at least—furnishes no paralell.
It's a sweet deal if you belong to the ruling elite, or even to the lower echelons of the overclass. I have no difficulty understanding why certain individuals and groups would be in no witching hurry to relinquish the present system of anti-male state apparatus. I can allow that the state would mushroom considerably by enacting male equality measures, but at the same time it would lose that divide-and-rule advantage which, due to male inequality, it presently enjoys. Women would lose their power under law to destroy men, and from thenceforth men and women would be in the same boat relative to state power. Men, being no longer under the shadow of legal terror, could once again be revolutionary and "violent" in the correct and time-honored way, and turn their newly liberated masculine energy against the state. So while the state would gain in one way, it would lose in another and quite possibly more deadly way.
In conclusion, recall that the whole feminist enterprise prospers only because men permit it. And if certain men find it profitable to maintain feminism's existence for the purpose of suppressing other men, then I cannot for the life of me understand why they wouldn't carry on with such a lucrative enterprise. From their point of view this would make perfect sense.
Note: For those who relish political science as much as I do, the following links are recommended: