Sunday, January 27, 2013

Feminism and "Patriarchy" Grow From the Same Root

In point of fact, feminism and patriarchy are virtually the same thing, as becomes apparent when you analyze the gynocentric cultural deep-structure which sustains them both. Give the following a careful read:
"Men owe women chivalry; the ethic that men should provide for and protect women.  Creating a secure environment for women comes first.  Men have to signal their trustworthiness before women can be expected to give men trust.  Granting to women the rights of the Traditional Woman is the primary way that men signal to women that they are trustworthy.  Only after men signal their trustworthiness will women trust men and only after there is mutual trust between men and women can a healthy and stable foundation for family life be established.  Men must be the first ones to take the risk of abuse and harm in order to establish trust between the sexes." 
As you see, this is indistinguishable from feminism. Yet the author of these words is ostensibly no feminist at all, but a male "Traditional Women's Rights Activist" (or TWRA), by the name of Jesse Powell. Mr. Powell was once heard to remark (on the Thinking Housewife blog) that women must be protected from rape even at the cost of falsely imprisoning innocent men. Yes, you heard that correctly. Jesse Powell figures it is okay if YOU get wrongly convicted of rape, sent up the river for hard time, and quite possibly raped yourself. According to him, this is acceptable damage if we are to give the fair damsels a "secure environment."

In Jesse Powell's projected future, women will go back into the kitchen or back into the nursery. Apart from that, his projected future is feminist straight to the core. But it differs from the left-wing edition of feminism in being merely gynocentric as opposed to gynonormative. So in Jesse's world men would at least not be manginas but rather, one would imagine, iron of jaw, square of shoulder and willing to go to prison even though innocent.

In the end, I would aver that Jesse Powell is every bit as rank an enemy as Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnnon or the radical feminists whom Agent Orange brought to our attention.

I reject both the right and the left wings of feminism, and will strive for a future along the lines of a synthesis which balances freedom and responsibility in a variety of configuarations.

Go now, and read Jesse Powell's article at the Feminine Mystique blog:

http://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/why-i-am-a-twra/

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could you please link to the place where Jesse Powell stated he was okay with men being falsely imprisoned?

If you look at the other articles on the TWRA blog, you will find that though it is aimed at women and therefore of course somewhat 'gynocentric', it is clearly stated on several articles & comments that we also believe women should show their husbands the deference due their role, women should obey their husbands & please them, that womens education should be aimed at being good wives to their husbands, that women should not be able to take out credit without his permission and so on. The TWRA do not just care about women, they care about the well-being of the entire family.

2:55 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

The place in question is on the Thinking Housewife blog (or was) in a guest post written by Powell himself. I do not have a link, but Powell raises the point in question during a discussion of the "men's rights movement" (he has no use for it, will have none of it, etc...).
This appearance by Jesse Powell at "Thinking Housewife" was about 3 years ago.

I do not doubt what you say about other articles at TWRA.

6:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should I care if "women" trust me. I'm not interested in "women" establishing a family with me, it only requires one, the rest of them don't need to trust me, I sure as hell do not need to risk any abuse or harm for some stranger, particularly who is more likely than not to abuse me herself, in word if not deed. Let them defend themselves, they've got plenty of privilege and deference as is now required by law and pc public opinion. Beyond that, let 'em tear each other's eyes out. I'll show protection and loyalty to those who first demonstrate worthiness beyond presence of an orifice.

7:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, she SAYS she's not a feminist... but all the lies and euphoric self-blather indicate that she is just a different brand of gender narcissist.

9:04 AM  
Anonymous trent13 said...

I find reading the stuff on the blog to be a source of intense, INTENSE, frustration, because they are taking the same feminist "have their cake and eat it too" from a different angle and calling it something (traditional patriarchal values)it's not.

Traditional values means shaming and laws banning divorce, abortion, pre-marital sex. It means traditional values founded on traditional W. European religion (re: Belloc's Europe and the Faith) Traditional values regarding marriage are not built around or directed towards the perceived rights of the individuals in the marriage. Traditional patriarchal is the primary means by which the citizenry fulfills the obligations and duties owed to God first, family (society) second, and ourselves (the individual) last.

Obviously THAT doesn't go over so well with those who are purely concerned about the individual's rights (yay for John Locke and all that jazz), but don't take all the fru-fru, fluffy by-product of traditional values (like women in the home, and men out working) and morality, and then call them "traditional patriarchal values." What a bunch of twaddle. It's like they have half of an equation, but are claiming to have the solution.

Long term, they would end in the same position we are in now, meaning it isn't the solution they are pretending it is. It's just another brand of the same problem, or a flashback to the precursor of the current problem. The tripe they tote as "traditional patriarchy" is the empty, worthless husk of the social constructs of yester-year. It failed then because it had no (yay for the Protestant reformation!) back-bone, and it'll fail now. Regardless, I don't see them pointing out the danger divorce and contraception poses to the male/female dynamic.

On a side note, I was reading somewhere (can't remember where) about how if women use contraceptives for more than a year (? some period of time, not for sure it's a year), they begin to prefer effeminate men. No wonder the rugged male isn't "fashionable" anymore.

Yes, let's create a society of women, and men, who are like women! Aaaagh!

Excuse the rant!

10:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

rant accepted by some... the myth of women preferring effeminate men - is exactly that. no matter what they settle for, a confident, deep, mature voice... always brings them out. don't let 'em fool ya. that's tripe. they still like what they always liked. a man.

6:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and I agree, this site is feminism dressed in a negligee. same attempt to put men in a box, men serve, women deserve. how is that justifiable? there could only be one answer close to reasonable, that is because women have babies. that and their femininity, in a good way, that's what makes them special. demands for preferential treatment no matter what they do and say negates all that.

6:11 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home