Female Criminality
The dark side of female nature is routinely swept under the carpet, or excused, or "prettied up" in a variety of ways. Such rationalizing behavior (sometimes loosely described as "chivalry") has deep roots in the culture at large, and has existed since long before the radical 1960s when the current feminist regime got started. However, feminism is as much a product of pre-existing culture as anything else is -- it did not enter the world through a side-door from nowhere. And so feminism depends on "chivalry" in order to stay in business. The feminist principle that women can do no wrong grows directly out of the chivalrous "patriarchal" order, and feminism itself continues to draw sustenance from the psychic deep structure it shares with that order. Feminism does not aim so much to "end" so-called patriarchy as to transform it into something controlled, firstly, by feminist men and women, and secondly, by second-tier lackeys drawn from the ranks of social conservatives -- the white knights as we call them. The demographic sector that will come under fire most of all will be men who, by whatever combination of methods, minimize the control that women exert over their lives.
By writing the above paragraph, I have implicated myself as a "misogynist" in the court of feminist law. Awww shucks, so be it! It is impossible to take the concept of "misogyny" seriously any more, and the people who throw that word around are a bunch of ying-yangs.
At any rate, you will find the present YouTube video from RockingMrE to be worth your while, since anything which punctures sugar-and-spice delusions about women is mighty ammunition against the feminist regime.
You should also take a voyage over to YouTube itself, where RockingMrE has kindly provided links to a number of PDF files and other material that you won't want to miss:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IxQo-Pu1Gw&feature=related
posted by Fidelbogen at 11:59 AM
1 Comments:
Can't say I agree that the purpose of chivalry is to give women a free pass to be criminals, but I understand how it could seem that way, most especially in its currently corrupted and puerile state (been that way since the 19th c. when the full impact of losing the moral foundation on which chivalry was originally based was realized.)
Considering that the development of Western civilization was so heavily influenced by the Church (Catholic), which has a very clear understanding of sin, and certainly doesn't give women any freebies, prior to the religious upheaval which eventually allowed for the French revolution, chivalry's purpose was to protect women, not from criminality, but from being taken advantage of, since under the patriarchy their "rights" (as we understand them today) were mitigated (and rightfully so).
I think one of the biggest parts of the problem when speaking of patriarchy and chivalry in a historical context as opposed to now, or even 200 years ago, is that their definitions, or at least the foundations, the ideology, of what informs those definitions, are vastly different. Most men today who we could call "chivalrous" are usually just weak men who were raised by strong-charactered women. They are tools...for the feminists to use against real men (who aren't tools and won't let a woman control their life.)
Since the 19th c. chivalry has been a purposeless, hollow shell of what it was - and at this point is is counter productive to reducing female power. The "individual freedom" basis of modern government has made it unnecessary, (but as pointed out, under Catholic patriarchy, it was necessary and also differently practiced and defined).
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home