Thursday, July 14, 2016

Why feminism is evil 2

Most people will be aware of the feminist insistence that we in the West live in a "rape culture". You might think that this would make feminists angry at men who rape or molest women. But that's not quite true. Sweden and Germany have recently experienced a wave of rape, molestation and sexual harassment of women in public swimming pools, at train stations, and at music concerts, sometimes by large groups of men, but feminists are not really up in arms about this. Why? Because the attackers are not white men, but immigrants from North Africa and the Middle-East. In fact, a Swedish feminist politician, Barbro Sörman, has tweeted that it is worse when Swedish men rape than when immigrant men do, because Swedish men do it as an "active choice".



What feminism is directed at is not so much opposing men but more pointedly at the defeat of one's own men. White feminists are seeking the defeat of white men (if you believe I am overstating this you need to read the twitter feeds of some prominent feminists - they do not hide their intentions, they nearly always specify white men as the group they are trying to bring down).

One purpose of this is, I believe, to disrupt the normal processes of heterosexual bonding between men and women. A person who no longer sees goodness or worthiness in the opposite sex is far less likely to feel the deeper and more enduring kind of love for a member of the opposite sex and is therefore less likely to make a commitment to marriage or family.

The constant feminist denigration of men as hostile attackers of women is one way of disrupting this bonding between men and women. It severs the natural sense of a larger loyalty between the men and women of a society, the sense of men and women united together for the benefit of a family, community or nation.

There is another aspect of the way that heterosexuality works that feminism disrupts. Young men and women usually have a sense of the finer qualities of the opposite sex that draws out admiration and love. It is not that a young man suddenly finds the unique qualities of just one woman something to love - if that were the case he might just as easily fall in love with a man. Instead, he sees something fine within womanhood, and he looks for a woman who embodies these qualities. Sometimes, young men and women idealise the better qualities of the opposite sex as part of this process.

Traditionally men would perceive a kind of delicacy of beauty and goodness in women ("loveliness") that might be felt as something transcendent (hence much Western art and culture).

How can young women come to a sense of a transcendent ideal of manhood if they are brought up on the idea of men as a hostile, violent enemy to women? And if men have a sense of women as the ideological, political enemy, then the feminine ideal is likely to be lost as well. And with it part of the bonding process.

(I know that red pillers might point out that this allows men to recognise more clearly the flaws within female nature, which is no doubt true, but what a traditional society is focused on is strengthening the path to family formation and encouraging the loves and commitments associated with family life.)

A healthy society would not allow men and women to be set apart into hostile camps, as we can see happening under the influence of feminism. It would allow the discussion of issues relating to men and women, but would not permit the institutionalisation of feminism as a state backed political movement. It would promote culture that displayed the higher expressions of manhood and womanhood, as an aid to the bonding process between men and women, alongside realistic portrayals of marriage and family life - but would not allow culture to be dominated by expressions of gender war. It would encourage a communal identity, giving a common identity and purpose to the men and women of a society. It might, as well, encourage small, mutual courtesies between men and women, as expressions of good will between the sexes.

We have to learn from what has gone wrong in the West, and one lesson is that feminism cannot be given free rein to disrupt the relations between the sexes. What kind of future is there, as this hardening into oppositional forces continues?

15 comments:

  1. I don't really know what else to say other than to agree that this is evil behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I look at it practically: if men were to have to wait for a female to agree to engage in sexual reproduction, this woman, and many like her, would probably never had been born.

    I see that as a good thing that would have been the outcome of their circular logic; they would have never existed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Feminism is about destruction of the traditional family.
    The traditional family brings up the "paternalistic" personality which is incompatible with Utopia. We need "truly" free people. Thus we need children brought up in non-traditional families (single moms, same sex couples, government institutions).

    Men do care about culture, national and religious identity (because they are naturally wired to protect their own land), women have different strategies to survive. Many of them choose Government, as they think it's the Alpha who will provide for them and protect them from inferior males (which happened to be all males).

    Very shortsighted, but instincts are not rational, feminism exploits this weakness.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Feminism is indeed a tool to destroy the Christian family but it is the creation of the elite men who control society and its economic and political life. The "feminists" are just paid propagandists used to push an ideology on the population.

    However many men contribute to their own denigration by the exploitation and subsequent abandonment of women and their offspring which creates understandable perceptions of hostility in women.

    There is no present evidence in the West of men who care about their culture, national and religious identity. The Churches are full of women, men conspicuous by their absence. It is men who are at the forefront driving every possible means of cultural destruction by open borders, pornography, sexual promiscuity, rock music and more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, I disagree in part with this. It is true that the main changes in society are due to a liberal philosophy which has mostly been imposed on society by elite men. No argument there, which is why most of the posts at this site are directed against liberal men.

      However, when it comes to relationships and family life, the men of my generation have been left to observe what happens when women's sexual nature is "liberated". It has been a sobering, disillusioning experience. And, in general, men have been in a state of "catch up adaptation" to the new relationships/family culture that women have brought to society.

      Yes, it is true that men are conspicuous by their absence in the churches, but that doesn't surprise me given that so few churches make any attempt to relate to men. Liberalism often wins by giving the ordinary person no other institutional choice, but when it comes to religion men do at least have the choice of not showing up.

      Anon, I particularly disagree with your last sentence. It is actually women who make up the bulk of the support for the open borders parties and it is 20-something women who have done harm by rejecting the family guy types in favour of the fun/risky types. Even when modern women do finally decide to "settle" with a family guy type, they are often unable to really shed their earlier preferences, hence much of the divorce industry. A lot of women are happy to go clubbing, get male attention, go home occasionally with a fun player type man and keep repeating the process. The smart ones choose to settle down in time, some just keep going at it.

      It's a difficult situation, because a lot of men have lost their love/trust when it comes to women, and then descend into a state in which they have no investment in society and so are poor candidates for leading any resistance to what is happening in society.

      Delete
    2. it is true that men are conspicuous by their absence in the churches, but that doesn't surprise me given that so few churches make any attempt to relate to men.

      Mark, the churches have driven men away. At least they've driven heterosexual men away. I think it's at least partly deliberate. The churches are now a club for women and homosexual men.

      Delete
    3. "However many men contribute to their own denigration by the exploitation and subsequent abandonment of women and their offspring which creates understandable perceptions of hostility in women."

      It must be understood the burden that being a father and husband carries with it. In essence, the man who accepts the burden is putting his entire social position on the line. If he fails, he'll be considered a failure by society.

      What this means is that the outcome of his family, the way they behave and live, become inextricably attached to him as a man. Thus the behavior of people over whom he has a limited amount of control, his family, will determine whether _he personally_ is a success or failure in society's eye.

      It's small wonder that many men shrink from this today. Generally, society gave men a good deal of help decades ago. It's standards tended to be his own, and as such his views and actions were corroborated by society. Wives and children saw his authority backed up everywhere, and as such concluded it was both good and sensible. This steadied him a lot, and gave him backing.

      Today, a man must take it completely on himself. Male authority is attacked in the media, politics, and culture. The foolish male is endlessly paraded on TV. Additionally, many men simply don't know what to do: they have no idea how to run a family. The various social institutions that helped show him the way don't exist now. If men got support - if there was help from outside - many would take the leap with faith that they could figure it out on the way. But in hostile conditions like these today, it's unlikely that any but the most confident men will attempt it. There is little imagination in a minefield of risk: and that's basically what society is today for the man that wants to marry and have children.

      As such, they maintain an "at will" relationship with the women in their lives. They are careful to put the burden of child-raising on their girlfriends because they are afraid of failing as fathers. They know that women are given a partial pass by society with regards to their children. People tend to think a mother has already been through an ordeal simply by having the child in the first place. As such, her position is safer, socially speaking, than a man's. She is given something of a pass if her children don't turn out well.

      Men don't get that pass. And they also don't get the natural support that women tend to show other women that are mothers. Men don't tend to help other men as fathers, unless it is a consciously pursued act of society. In short, it must become a _goal of society_ before men help each other as fathers.

      Modern men _want_ to be fathers. But they tend to stop short. Without society's backing, they consider the risk of failure too great to stake their reputation on it. As such, they focus on professional accomplishments exclusively, and try to have an intense but non-committal relationship with their girlfriends.

      Delete
    4. "I think it's at least partly deliberate. The churches are now a club for women and homosexual men."

      I've never thought of it that way, but it makes sense for the mainline denominations in countries like Australia. Not sure it works for American evangelicals.

      Delete
    5. "Thus the behavior of people over whom he has a limited amount of control, his family, will determine whether _he personally_ is a success or failure in society's eye."

      I've been thinking about this myself lately. It seems to me that the red pill men are right in one sense: young women see the fun/exciting player type men as "alpha" and the stable provider type men as "betabux" they might eventually settle for (and later on maybe divorce). So it is easier for men to maintain a kind of alpha status by giving women no leverage over them by never giving an unconditional commitment. The problem is that this means focusing on boyfriend/girlfriend relationships where there is neither marriage nor children. Men who are willing to marry and become fathers give up status and power in their relationships with women - they almost necessarily become "beta" - and make themselves vulnerable to women's confused feelings toward beta provider men.

      So if a society wants its men to marry and provide it has to alter the balance, so that men are not relegated in status in women's eyes in doing so and so that men are not made vulnerable to exploitation as "betabux" in doing so.

      In other words, society has to step in and deliberately bump up the status and power of married men, so that men do not lose power and status by marrying.

      Not sure I explained that well, but I think there's something to it.

      Delete
    6. I've never thought of it that way, but it makes sense for the mainline denominations in countries like Australia.

      When women and homosexual men start to colonise any organisation they will eventually take it over completely. Once they've done that the organisation becomes just another liberal/cultural marxist power centre/propaganda machine and any remaining heterosexual men are driven out. Sadly it's way too late to save any of the mainstream churches.

      I suspect the American evangelical churches haven't quite got to that point yet but give it another decade and it will happen.

      You have to remember that from the liberal point of view control of the churches is a major prize - it's as important to them as control of the schools and the media. They won't give up until that prize is firmly in their grasp.

      Delete
    7. "Yes, it is true that men are conspicuous by their absence in the churches, but that doesn't surprise me given that so few churches make any attempt to relate to men. Liberalism often wins by giving the ordinary person no other institutional choice, but when it comes to religion men do at least have the choice of not showing up. "

      Churches relate to the Christian believer, regardless of whether male or female. It seems that your rather absurd assertion that churches cater to women and homosexuals is a weak excuse for male abandonment of the faith.

      The true believer does not abandon the Church, regardless of the state of the Church. Churches dominated by women and homosexuals are that way because heterosexual men gave up on their faith and became atheists. The vacuum was henceforth filled by women.

      If men attended church and fulfilled religious obligations then homosexuals would have no opportunities and women would be kept in their place.

      Delete
    8. "However, when it comes to relationships and family life, the men of my generation have been left to observe what happens when women's sexual nature is "liberated". It has been a sobering, disillusioning experience. And, in general, men have been in a state of "catch up adaptation" to the new relationships/family culture that women have brought to society"

      You are contradicting yourself here. Elite men brought about the sexual revolution, not women. Women were brainwashed to become sexually available before marriage, often against instinct and prudence.

      And its males who most strenuously and enthusiastically embraced the sexual revolution and who are the most "liberated". You write with the absurd implication that virginal and pure men are having to deal with promiscuous women when this is essentially the reverse of what is happening in the real world. The level of sexual immorality and depravity in males is now perhaps the most extreme in the history of Western society. Check out the incidence of attendance at STD clinics, the epidemiology of STDs, the prevalence of HIV in clinical and subclinical manifestations, convictions for paedophilia and sexual assault and you will find that the vast majority of these cases are male.

      Consultant any Law Firm dealing with divorces and you will find that the majority of divorces are a consequence of male infidelity. You overstate the cliche of the "beta man" being divorced by the wife. It happens but it is a minority incidence as most women will not initiate costly and lengthy legal proceedings unless they can trade up for a wealthier spouse and this is fairly rare.

      Delete
    9. "Women were brainwashed to become sexually available before marriage, often against instinct and prudence."

      No, I think the opposite is true, but I will explain a little later when I have time perhaps in a post.

      Delete
  5. "Women were brainwashed to become sexually available before marriage, often against instinct and prudence."

    This is hilarious. Total denial of reality. Nobody has to be brainwashed to have sex. Sex is fun and enjoyable. Even more so for women.
    It was men that demanded that women stay a virgin before marriage. It wasn't women's natural inclination. Feminism has now allowed young women to do what they wish. Which for many of them is to have promiscuous sex with the best looking men that they can in their teens and early twenties, then eventually settle down with a good provider. Feminism has freed young women from male demands for chastity before marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is not surprising at all. The vast majority of feminists welcomed the invasion of Europe by "migrants". Part of the reason is that they see personal opportunities for shacking up with the recent arrivals, which they would not otherwise have had.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.