Here Is Something
And something is good, since I have posted nothing for a few days. Anyway, in my web burrowings I have serendipitously stumbled upon the following—it is a blog on Wordpress. The post is not directly about feminism, yet politically borders upon it pretty closely. At any rate, we counter-feminists ought to have a broad intellectual lens; we ought to feed our heads from many sources, so that we may bring a wealth of background understandings and conclusions to bear upon our foreground task. We think about plenty of things (far more than we publicly talk about!) and we only SEEM to be narrowly obsessed with feminism, feminism and feminism! But go now and imbibe:
http://tinyurl.com/2aycppt
I have added my own commentary to that post, and at the time I posted there appeared to be only two commenters ahead of me on the thread. My comment is awaiting moderation, but regardless if it survives there, it surely does appear below for your dining pleasure. Bon appetit! ;)
http://tinyurl.com/2aycppt
I have added my own commentary to that post, and at the time I posted there appeared to be only two commenters ahead of me on the thread. My comment is awaiting moderation, but regardless if it survives there, it surely does appear below for your dining pleasure. Bon appetit! ;)
"PC is a tool used by the right to control dialog."A final note: in the part where I say "purportedly Leftist piece of writing", I should rather have written "seemingly" in place of "purportedly".
Another school of thought says that PC is a tool used by the LEFT to control dialogue.
Terminology such as "patriarchy, heterosexism,white supremacism, etc. ." certainly does smack of PC, but it does not smack of the Right. However, including "the state" on that list of bad things DOES smack of the Right, since the logical endpoint of Leftism can best be summarized by Mussolini's famous dictum: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contra lo Stato”.
(In other words, both Mussolinism and Leftism posit the state as Good. So the presence of "the state" on a list of Leftist devils in a purportedly Leftist piece of writing can only be interpreted as a rhetorical feint.)
Therefore, as to the post here under consideration, it smacks too much of "loveburger fascism" for my liking. I'm instinctively looking at my watch, waiting for the big moment when the mask will drop away and reveal the totalitarian face beneath.
To say that "good exists" is as inane as any other leap of faith. Philosophers have been arguing for ages over the meaning of "good".
I suppose the funky, lurking question in the background would be "who gets to be the cancer cells". (i.e. the devil). Beaming love and acceptance at your adversary is all very well in theory, but calling him a "cancer cell" in the first place (or even covertly defining him thuswise) pretty much defeats the purpose.
posted by Fidelbogen at 12:19 PM
23 Comments:
I feel like such a ditzo for asking, but what is PC? I couldn't really infer from the comments either.
I think it is always dangerous to diverge from speaking specifically on feminism, because beyond your fan's general consensus that feminism is bad, it seems like there isn't much agreement. Even arguing methods in how to combat feminism or properly identify and appellate it provides for a dispute, so if one begins to discuss all of the other topics which fringe feminism, I could see it being worse for the cause (so to speak).
On the other hand, I, of course, wish all of you anti-feminists ascribed to my perfect world view ;) In which case, combating feminism wouldn't even need to be an organized and active campaign for feminism to slowly but surely shrink and fade away into a peculiar historical absurdity. The extinction of feminism would simply be a natural and organic by-product of society's general reform. (Sigh. There's my rosy world.)
Question: All anti-feminists do not agree that patriarchy is the greatest system to use - to your knowledge, what and how many different theories are popular amongst anti-feminists? And that would be whether these theories on systems would in reaction to feminism, in order to get rid of feminism, etc... whatever - just, which ones have been proposed to solve the problem? Knowing the broad scope of your exposure amongst anti-feminists, I'd be appreciative of a quick study.
Hi F, excuse me for being 'OT'.
Can you please tell me who said, "All women must work because if some stay-at-home taking care of their own children, all women will want that?
Also, what is the correct quote? I can't find it in my search.
Hi trent13,
All anti-feminists do not agree that patriarchy is the greatest system to use - to your knowledge, what and how many different theories are popular amongst anti-feminists?
Patriarchy isn't popular to me because it means a hierarchy where some people (men in particular) or one group is in charge of every other group.
At the moment England/America is the top of the system and the federal reserve runs the England/American system.
http://tinyurl.com/284keea
Under the Patriarchy there's a woman's group that represents all women and decides their rules and how they work for the system. That's feminism.
Not so long ago (40 odd years) other countries ran themselves but the United Nations and the banking system brought them under the control of the Federal reserve.
I'm not exactly sure of the details but I'm not far off on my information.
I'd like to see the hierarchy completely eradicated and replaced with a system where everyone works together for the good of the world and mankind. I think it will happen one day. Heck, God promises it, lol.
In fact, why not put God or good at the top.
". .what is PC?"
@Trent13:
PC stands for "politically correct" or "political correctness". Basically, a form of radical leftwing thought-policing that gains its traction by fostering divisions among various groups in society.
You probably know the term "cultural Marxism". It's pretty much the same animal.
PC's intellectual progenitors include Herbert Marcuse and the Frankfort School, and the Italian Communist philosopher Antonio Gramsci (who invented the word "hegemony").
More recently, postmodernism/poststructuralism has pitched in and given things a boost.
The one time Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger was, I understand, also contributory.The exposure of his DEEPER Nazi sympathies triggered waves of angst and upset various applecarts in leftist academia.
@Trent13:
Something tells me this is gonna turn into one of those long, fascinating comment threads which bloom periodically on CF! :)
"Question: All anti-feminists do not agree that patriarchy is the greatest system to use - to your knowledge, what and how many different theories are popular amongst anti-feminists? And that would be whether these theories on systems would in reaction to feminism, in order to get rid of feminism, etc... whatever - just, which ones have been proposed to solve the problem? Knowing the broad scope of your exposure amongst anti-feminists, I'd be appreciative of a quick study."
Sigh! A quick study is more than I can promise; if it is quick it is not much of a study. Nevertheless, here goes:
The problem with a statement like "all anti-feminists do not agree about X" is, that not all anti-feminists understand the bedrock terms of the discussion in the first place.
And of those who DO. . not all agree upon the definition of those terms.
Take, for example, the word "patriarchy". In my opinion, most MRAs (anti-feminists) have not thought out the issues very thoroughly or deeply in connection with this word.
So not surprisingly, they talk PAST the feminists. But what is even more troublesome is that they also talk past EACH OTHER! :(
I, however, being a practical philosopher, have thought things out deeply enough for my own purposes - and everybody's purposes, if only they knew it! (See the link at right which says "What They Don't Want You to Know.")
My own practical concern is to understand what feminism as a movement means by "patriarchy". And it is very, very simple. They mean MALE POWER of ANY imaginable kind.
Whatsoever.
That is the axial point of gravity around which their movement rotates.
Mind you, "power" is a fluid thing that appears in many forms. But whatever shape it assumes, if it resides in the hands of a male person then they wish (eventually, ultimately) to take it away.
PATRIARCHY = MALE POWER OF ANY KIND
And THAT. . . is the organizing premise from which I work, from which all of my anti-feminist thinking branches and spreads out.
SO. . making the personal a tad political: If "patriarchy" means ME holding a decent, fair, reasonable amount of power - or any power at all - then clearly, hurrrah for patriarchy!!
All right, enough about me. Turning now to what YOU, Trent13, (as a traditional woman) probably mean by "patriarchy". Or at least PART of what you mean by it.
Whatever else you might mean by "patriarchy", you as a traditional woman undoubtedly mean (at the very least, for starters) that men should be heads of households.
So, what do I, as an MRA and CFAC, think about that? All right, I believe that as a lifestyle between mutually consenting adults, there is in theory no reason why such an arrangement couldn't be a perfectly happy,fruitful and rational way to live. If a man and woman get married, and make a social contract to live this way, then I wish them all the best. They have my blessing. . .
(This is getting long, so I will pick it up tomorrow in a separate entry. Stay tuned. . . .)
Found it.
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."
-- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
Mareika,
Simone deBeauvoir is the fount from which all of this nonsense has flowed. I've read that quote before. Her easy unwillingness to allow women to choose their own lifestyle (one that includes mutual cooperation and dependency with a man) is not surprising at all. After all, she knows better.
OT: Fidel, the next phase of the economic meltdown has apparently begun. The EU has taken steps to disallow certain types of currency speculation, and in so doing has told the world that the Euro is dead. The Euro is dying as I write this. All of this was initiated by the situation in Greece forcing everyone to examine Eurozone in general. The debt picture is very ugly. There currently is a massive rush into the USD, but it will ultimately turn into a repudiation of paper money. A bounce is completely possible, but I agree with the following author, the die is cast.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/matterhorn-asset-management-die-has-been-cast
An interesting blurb from the linked article:
"Once the new era starts it will therefore be from a very much lower level and individuals will be rewarded for hard work with little or no social security safety net. Credit will only be granted for sound capital investment projects, not for consumption or speculation. Ethical and moral values will return and the golden calf will not be worshipped. But before that, the period of readjustment will be very long and extremely difficult for the whole world."
As you know, this is what I have predicted: a return to human sanity, because of a lack of opportunity to choose otherwise. You had to know we were on a short window of time when vacuous, self-indulgent women such as those on "real housewives" could even exist.
Do you have any food in the house? (Only partly kidding)
"I'd like to see the hierarchy completely eradicated and replaced with a system where everyone works together for the good of the world and mankind. I think it will happen one day. Heck, God promises it, lol."
Theoretically, that would be great. On paper I'm a distributist, but distributism doesn't take into account the flaws of human nature. It is an impossibility, even were one to live in world where the Social Kingship of Christ reigned, that all peoples would harmoniously live together without government.
Government, and thus hierarchy, is inevitable, and it must be informed by the social order - whether that is patriarchy or matriarchy makes a very big difference, because it will be one or the other. It is a delusion to think that the social order could be without a bias towards one of the sexes, and not only a delusion, but detrimental to society at large.
I, personally, am not a fan of either the Federal Reserve or the United Nations. I wouldn't say these things, or feminism, are a result of having a patriarchy. Unless I am misunderstanding you, you think that the blame for the rise of things can be laid at the feet of the patriarchy, and I don't see that.
There is nothing wrong with the system; there is something wrong with people. If one could say the patriarchy is to blame, it is only insofar as society allowed these things to rise, because men (humans, that is) are sheep, and are inclined to believe what they are told to be the government (if I were a ruthless dictator, The Prince would be my nightly reading).
I don't think of patriarchy as referring to a governmental system so much as it refers to the entire breakdown of society, not only men as heads of households, but, in general, men running the world, and women raising their children to be the best citizens they can. The idea that, historically, power under the patriarchy has resided in the hands of a few is not true across the board. That was the point in the founding of America.
oh, right, PC - gotcha.
I know some anti-feminists who are big supporters of TRUE equality, others who are supporters of let's just kill all women (heh, that was kind of a joke), er, total male domination, but I was wondering (including those who would argue for the patriarchy), are those the only social orders which have been theorized as a cure for feminism, or are there are others you have come across?
"or are there are others you have come across?"
Libertarianism. Reduce the size of the state to its basic functions and let the chips fall where they may.
the state being a democracy or a republic?
@Trent13:
I will carry on with my earlier talk, and I think it might address some of the points you have just raised.
You speak of "social orders that have been theorized as a cure for feminism". Well, my observation has been that plenty of anti-feminists have not "theorized" at all in that area.
Myself, I have theorized just enough, but not too much.
My own vision is that we must slowly, patiently strangle feminism by coordinated action among a coalition of forces. (Step One in that programme is to establish the sector system, i.e. feminist v. non-feminist. Step Two is for the non-feminist sector to grow into a sophisticated organism (similar to a 'popular front') with separate organs (specialties) devoted to separate tasks.)
All right, let's get back on track - hopefully to something that you, a traditional woman, would find meaningful. Basically, you are asking "what would replace feminism?". . and THAT is exactly the question that a lot of feminists are fond of asking - because they are drug dealers, and their drug (have you guessed it?) is feminism.
So my reply to "what will replace feminism?" is. . . NOTHING.
More precisely. . nothing but the natural order of things.
Snark has just made a comment about "letting the chips fall where they will", and that, with very few modifications, is what I too would say.
Feminism is, apart from anything else, a corruption, a violation, an encroachment. Or, if you will, a TRANSGRESSION.
Feminism has transgressed. It has overstepped; it has crossed the line.
One may speak of the "natural order".
Or one may speak of "god's plan".
Different concepts, but not so different as to rule out political convergence, common understanding, and common action.
Feminism has transgressed the natural order, or transgressed god's plan. As you will.
And so. . I believe the first order of business, and maybe the only one, is to pull feminism's card.
And after that the chips will fall without any help from me.
The disappearance of feminism would NOT make any traumatic impact on the lives of women generally. Well, maybe for feminist women it be traumatic, but I don't honestly give a rip about THEM!
Life would go on, and. . it would settle back into certain timeless patterns.
One thing I know for sure, is that regardless what any possible non-feminist future might look like, a feminist future would always look unspeakably WORSE.
Given a choice between squashing feminism, and letting feminism live, there really IS no choice!
The non-feminist future will be humanly flawed, but then . . when was the world ever NOT humanly flawed?
So I say, let the chips fall. And when they hit the ground, gather and assemble them. God's plan, or the natural order, will give a natural boost to such activity.
I could go on. . .
"I know some anti-feminists who are big supporters of TRUE equality. ."
"Equality" is such a problematic term. And "true" equality? That only ups the problematic ante...
But if 'TRUE' equality means a correctly balanced (or "adult") allocation of conveniences and inconveniences at EVERY new step up the freedom ladder, then I am for it and, clearly, the feminists are against it.
@NotNOW:
". .Ethical and moral values will return and the golden calf will not be worshipped."
Hurrah for that!
In the USA, the big golden calf appears to be materialism, or "he who dies with the most toys wins."
THAT shit is even worse than feminism, if you can believe it! I could almost do a blog called "The Counter-Materialist".
Financial independence is proper to men, and single women who have no intention of ever marrying, but even then, I urge against it because of the above - who knows whether or not they will change their mind and decide to marry.
Being a stay at home mom in modern society is hard because they are no longer simply dealing with the hardships of raising a family (and if it's not work, well, there is something wrong with the wife), they are also having to deal with the fact that society claims their work is worthless (therefore they are worthless) and they are pressured to get out there and have a job even though at some level they feel (and they do) that they would be abandoning their children in doing so.
In the end, I could see how we eventually will get to the point where strictures on family size will crop up as legitimate government action, of course under the auspices that it is "irresponsible," or somehow committing a crime to society at large.
When that happens it will show just how deeply feminism has entrenched itself in society. Feminists don't want dependent women in the home, mothering their children and taking care of their spouse and home and thereby having happy marriages, because it is a further proof of the fallacy of their arguments. Hence the great importance they place in focusing their attention on creating victim-hood and then reminding housewives of it.
Sorry about the length of the posts!
The natural order being... (?) I can only see that there are few options; society can't remain in flux with regards to which sex will have the power. I don't see how it would be possible to combat feminism without instituting (for effectiveness sake, organically, and not through artificial means) something which would fill that void.
Overall I would have to say feminism has been successful in taking over - they still fight because one (women) can never have too much power. How would feminism ever be gone for good in a society which organically allows for it? Unfortunately, I fear that feminism has already set the precedent for women to be in power, and it's been entrenched in nearly three generations (at least) of women - is it even feasible for society, excepting its fundamentally changing its mindset to feminism's opposite, patriarchy (in my sense), to exist without feminism constantly trying to rear its head?
I want to say a social vacuum would present itself if feminism were done away with without it being replaced with something else. I don't know if you have children, but if you do, how do you raise your girls to not be, on some level, feminists in today's world? Even the very fact of a woman's independence, her vying for her own welfare, causes her to compete against other men, thereby inculcating in young women the thought their only value to society can be counted by monetary production. If that is the case, it necessarily means that women should be fighting for jobs and power against men, and have the right to do so.
I can only say this having experienced the backlash and frustration that arises from realizing the importance in women not being financially independent, that our value of ourselves not derive its source from the almighty paycheck. (I know, some anti-feminists men would want to beat me were they to read this, saying how this opts for women to be the most lazy, unproductive, worthless and selfish creatures alive...but my defense of the position I'll worry about later.)
Practically speaking though, either a society must consent to families having no more than two children, in order that the mother can "pull her weight" according to society's standards, and get a job, or women should not be raised with the idea of financial independence. I cannot tell you how much of a struggle it is psychologically, for a woman to stay at home and do, what the world views, as mundane family tasks (I'm a maid, a cook, a taxi, a baby-sitter, etc...) and not receive the hard cash in hand for it, specifically when has been out there and been accustomed to earning money for one's work.
"In the USA, the big golden calf appears to be materialism, or "he who dies with the most toys wins."
THAT shit is even worse than feminism, if you can believe it! I could almost do a blog called "The Counter-Materialist"."
Good for you, that is a laudable sentiment, and I quite agree.
In the USA, the big golden calf appears to be materialism, or "he who dies with the most toys wins."
Amen, brother. If one examines the post-modern incarnation of feminism, what does one find? A system of organized pillage, with the spoils going to women. Family? Doesn't matter. Men? Don't matter, except as pillagees. Children? Child support, baby!
Reality is coming. NYSE invoked Rule 48 for the open today.
I would LOVE to read The Counter-Materialist!
@ChefSnark:
"I would LOVE to read The Counter-Materialist!"
And I would LOVE to write it!
Actually, "counter-materialism" would be just one of many subjects I would explore on such a blog. The idea being, that in order to talk about feminism in a truly effective way, and to undermine it, you need to get AWAY from it and talk about other things.
I see the need to expand the base of counter-feminism in a philosophical and spiritual direction, by delving into matters that might seem a bit "OT". . .
It is a chance lay the cultural foundation for a post-feminist civilization as it were . . since it will undoubtedly be unfeasible to turn back the clock to the identical system that was trashed by the rise of feminism. The world has moved on a bit, and so must we with it. . .
I already have a blog called "The Organic Philosopher" but it has been gathering dust, with a grand total of one half-written post.
@Trent13:
"The natural order being..." (?)
That could be the subject of a book. But the short reply would be, that the natural order simply IS WHAT IT IS. . . and like the truth, it is "out there". (But of COURSE the natural order is "out there". I cannot doubt it, for if it were not so, then I would not be writing this and you would not be reading it. In order for such things to occur at all, rules, patterns and consistencies must be in effect. Voila! There is your natural order.)
"I can only see that there are few options; society can't remain in flux with regards to which sex will have the power."
I agree, society can't remain in flux, meaning "destabilized" as presently.
"I don't see how it would be possible to combat feminism without instituting (for effectiveness sake, organically, and not through artificial means) something which would fill that void."
"Organically, and not through artificial means" is the key phrase here. So, I think we need to understand how feminism itself was 'instituted': through artificial means, yes?
And kept in operation. . how? Through artificial means, yes?
That is my conclusion, at any rate.
So. . remove those "artificial means", and feminism would no longer be on life support.
Therefore, effectively, it would be out of business. This would leave a political power vacuum of course. But see, here's the thing about vacuums: they never last long!
Now, I'm sure you overlooked this, but when you wrote of "instituting" something "organically", you contradicted yourself.
If it is "organic", it doesn't really need to be "instituted". This "organic revolution" that you propose would grow. . well. . organically, from the ground up, from out of the natural order.
E.G. mowing your lawn is an "artificial institution", and when you stop doing this. . the result is "organic". You don't even need to think about it, do you?
"How would feminism ever be gone for good in a society which organically allows for it?"
Oh..but DOES society "organically allow for it"? Or. . is it those 'artificial institutions' again?
If the source of the toxin be identified, and attacked, and reduced in its scope of operation, then a host of knock-on effects would spread through society. This "precedent for women being in power" only gets its 'line of credit' so long as the underpinning ideology (feminism) remains creditable.
The big question (it seems to me) is how to damage feminism at its critical weak points so as to weaken the entire structure of it, clean through.
Do that, and a host of things will follow - organically.
""How would feminism ever be gone for good in a society which organically allows for it?""
Well. . it might not EVER be "gone for good". But it could be driven into a corner and rendered comparatively powerless.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home