feminism – root cause or consequence?

Feminism is without a doubt the worst plague ever to afflict the human race but was feminism a root cause of the evils that followed or merely a consequence of other social changes?

By the time second wave feminism made its appearance in the 1960s a number of crucial social changes had already occurred. The first and the most disastrous (possibly the single most disastrous event in human history) was the introduction of the contraceptive pill in 1961. That irrevocably turned sex into a recreational activity rather than a part of the sacrament of marriage. It made sex all about short-term pleasure. From that point on traditional marriage was doomed.

While in theory divorce was still difficult in many places it was clear that there was a trend towards making it easier in practice. And from about the 1920s onwards divorce had gradually become more socially acceptable. Divorce means marriage being transformed from a sacred unbreakable bond into a short-term arrangement to be terminated when it becomes inconvenient.

Women moved into the workforce in increasing numbers in the first half of the 20th century. That was not necessarily a problem. Women had always worked. But work was something women did until they got married. By the 50s it was becoming more socially acceptable for married women to work. This was a very unfortunate trend.

Even more disastrous was the expansion of higher education for women after the Second World War. In fact the expansion of higher education in general was a calamity. A university education is something that only a small proportion of the population (maybe 5%) will benefit from. For most people it is actually a bad thing. For all but a very tiny handful of women it is a disaster.

And of course the 20th century saw a continuation of the decline of Christianity. Without religion there is no basis for morality. Without morality there is only power (for the elites) and pleasure (for the masses).

These changes did not come about as a result of second wave feminism. These changes preceded second wave feminism, and in fact were largely responsible for making that horror possible. By the time the feminists got going western society had already started to lose its way.

There was also the Sexual Revolution, which was mostly a result of the contraceptive pill. The Sexual Revolution was of course very bad for women. Sexual liberation does not work fir women. They’re not wired that way. It simply makes women self-hating and miserable and chronically emotionally dissatisfied.

Men made the mistake of thinking the Sexual Revolution was going to be great for them. It would mean lots more sex. In fact it meant lots more sex for a very small number of men.

This is a large part of the explanation for the failure of men to stop feminism in its tracks at a time when that was still possible. Men were inclined to think that feminism was like the Sexual Revolution – they would end up getting more sex. Mostly they didn’t get the extra sex and what they did get was an ongoing nightmare. By the time the realities became apparent it was too late.

Feminism was largely a symptom of a society entering the terminal stages of decadence. It appeared at the same time as other symptoms like the drug culture and the worship of homosexuality. Maybe feminism could have been stopped but it would have required a willingness to confront other much more basic societal failings.

making life gay for everybody

One of the most unfortunate effects of our society’s obsession with the awesomeness of homosexuality is that heterosexuals have adopted many of the worst features of the male homosexual lifestyle.

The hookup culture is a fairly obvious manifestation of this trend. The more general emphasis on sex as an end in itself, of sex as a purely recreational activity, is something that feminists welcomed back in the 70s. Women have been paying for that folly ever since.

One of the early signs of the degree to which this was happening was Sex and the City, a TV show about male homosexuals created by a male homosexual. The evil twist was that the three central characters were women, but women living a male homosexual lifestyle. This seems to be what more and more women are doing.

Of course since this trend started women have become crazier and more miserable and now spend most of their time complaining that they can’t form lasting relationships with men.

Who would have imagined that encouraging women to live the male homosexual lifestyle would turn out to be a disaster?

conservative delusions: politics as a subject for debate

To say that liberals treat liberalism as a religion rather than a political ideology is to state the obvious. What is perhaps less obvious is that this is not a recent development. And what it is important to emphasise is that many conservatives still do not comprehend this. Conservatives have the quaint idea that liberals see politics as something that can be debated. Liberals do not see it this way. Disagreement is not disagreement, it is heresy and it is a sign of moral wickedness. Politics is not something that is open to discussion.

The particular flavour of the Social Justice cult is also the result of a mixture of religious enthusiasm and feminisation.

If you go back to the 1960s when the Old Left started to decay and the New Left took its place the religious fervour was already there. The New Left had no interest in economics. They had sold out to capitalism. They were not interested in changing or reforming or destroying the capitalist economic system. The New Left was all about morality and emotion and power. They were on the side of moral probity. Anybody who opposed them was therefore, by definition, morally wrong.

The New Left was feminised. It attracted women, it attracted homosexual men, it attracted weak girly-men. It adopted a peculiarly feminised attitude towards dissent. If you were a dissenter you weren’t someone who disagreed with them. You were a bad person. You made them feel bad. You were immoral.

The New Left made a lot of noises about freedom and especially freedom of speech. Conservatives tended to accept these protestations at face value. Big mistake. The New Left never saw freedom of speech as anything but a weapon with which to attack their enemies. They never had the slightest intention of granting freedom of speech to their opponents. Older Australians may remember the way Australian university students shut down lectures by distinguished visiting psychologist Hans Eysenck in 1977. Eysenck was suspected of thought crime. Forty years ago the social justice warriors were already using violence and intimidation to silence anyone guilty of heresy.

The New Left saw all freedoms in this way – as potential weapons. Sexual freedom was a weapon with which to destroy the family. Feminism was promoted as an ideology that offered freedom to women. In fact of course feminists never intended that women should have actual freedom. Women were to be free to do what the feminists told them to do.

Conservatives at the time understood that the New Left agenda was dangerous but they made the mistake of seriously underestimating the extent of the danger. Or rather they wildly over-estimated society’s ability to survive the New Left’s social experiments. And they made the huge mistake of thinking that the New Left really did believe in freedom of speech.

So where do the neocons figure in all this? The New Left is right-wing on economic issues mostly because economic issues don’t affect them in a religious or emotional way so they take the line of least resistance, and as a result they get generously funded by rich capitalists. The neocons are much more excited by economic issues but what really marks them out is that they approach foreign policy as a religious issue. Anyone who opposes their foreign policy is not just mistaken, but morally wrong and a bad person.

propping up feminism

A commenter on a recent post at Oz Conservative made what seems to me to be a very good point.

“If the laws promoting feminism were to be simply repealed, it would disappear of its own accord in no more than a decade.”

I think that’s almost certainly true. Feminism is an ideology that is so deluded and wrong-headed that it can only be propped up by active and aggressive government action.

Governments can pressure universities to achieve “equality” in science faculties. We then end up with a huge number of scientifically incompetent women occupying places in academia and, more worryingly, in industry and government. But this cannot change the fact that women’s contribution to science and technology has been practically nil. And continues to be practically nil. Women are just not good at science. Most women “scientists” are in fact administrators and other parasites. They’re not real scientists doing important cutting-edge work.

Governments can pressure corporations to appoint female CEOs. This usually has disastrous consequences for the corporations in question because women make poor CEOs. The biggest corporations don’t care. They’re too big to fail and it’s actually an advantage to them if their smaller competitors are weakened by being forced to put women into senior management positions.

Women can be pushed into political careers. They are rarely successful. They usually end up being incompetent but vicious control freaks like Theresa May, Hillary Clinton, Julia Gillard, Angela Merkel, etc etc etc. The women who want to go into politics do so because they love the idea of telling other people what to do but governing a country requires other skills that they conspicuously lack.

Governments can force the police and other emergency services to employ women in roles for which they are clearly not suited. The usual result is that innocent people die because the women are not up to the job.

Governments can force the military to put women in combat roles but when the shooting starts the women will almost all suddenly discover they’re pregnant and they won’t have to fight. Women don’t want to be soldiers; they want to play at being soldiers.

Governments can appoint more and more women to the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy will just become even more inefficient as the women hold endless meetings to discuss the importance of holding meetings.

Governments can encourage women to try to live like men and to conduct their personal lives lie men. The result is crazy miserable women.

Feminism can only survive as long as it is enforced as official government policy.

This might be acceptable if it actually made women happier. But it doesn’t. Pressuring women into taking on roles for which they are biologically and emotionally unsuited just makes women angry, miserable and crazy.

Of course most of the liberal agenda could never survive in the real world without government coercion to make us all pretend that it works. Feminism is merely the most spectacular example.

crybullies and the New Victorianism

One of the more spectacular current misunderstandings of the world is of the oft-expressed idea that feminism is turning the clock back to Victorian times, with women cast as delicate little flowers who can’t handle the real world. This idea has resurfaced in the wake of the latest sexual harassment witch-hunts. This whole idea is entirely false.

The women who scream and cry and stamp their feet about their feelings getting hurt are not delicate little flowers. They’re vicious bullies who are out to destroy anyone who dares to disagree with them or who is unwilling to grovel to them. They’re crybullies. Their feelings are not hurt. It’s all an act, and a very successful one. Feminists have figured out that pretending to be reduced to tears by nasty misogynist men is an incredibly useful and effective tactic for getting what they want. It’s a tactic that women discovered quite some time ago. Probably around 100,000 years ago.

They are not turning back the clock to Victorian mores. Nor do they have any intention of doing so. This is the age of slut culture and slut culture is one of the products of feminism. The objective is not to resurrect traditional sexual morality. The objective is to demonstrate their power.

It’s a tactic that has been adopted by most so-called victim groups although none of them do it quite so effectively as the feminists.

Women being women and therefore complicated and contradictory it is of course likely that other things are going on. Recently we’ve seen the phenomenon (chronicled with gleeful amusement by Steve Sailer) of women complaining because they were not being sexually harassed. Never underestimate the bitterness of women who find that they are not the object of male sexual attention, either because they’re too fat or too ugly or they’ve hit the wall.

Women also get angry when they find they’re not being sexually harassed by the right men. If for example the men concerned are not hot billionaires. It’s also quite probably that some women start throwing harassment allegations around when the sex turns out to be not as good as they’d hoped. Or when the sex turns out to be too good, which makes them feel too much like sluts. Or when they’ve basically behaved like whores and they’re afraid that people will notice.

The lesson is that nothing said by a feminist can be taken at face value. There are always wheels within wheels.

the cruel illusion of romantic love

The idea of romantic love as the basis for marriage, and the basis for personal happiness, is so deeply entrenched that it is easy to imagine that it is both universal and eternal. It is neither. It’s a purely western idea and it didn’t get off the ground until around about the twelfth century. That was when the European upper classes discovered courtly love.

Courtly love seems to have been to a considerable extent a literary invention (this proving once again that writers are in general a foolish and empty-headed lot) although the increasing feminisation of the Church and the rise and rise of the cult of Mary may have played a part. In any case courtly love spread like wildfire through the upper classes. Or to be more precise, it spread like wildfire among the women of the upper classes.

At the time it was perhaps not entirely a bad idea, or it didn’t seem like such a terrible idea. Life was still somewhat brutal and the upper classes were still to a large degree a warrior aristocracy and they were a little unpolished (although it needs to be emphasised that the Middle Ages were never as barbarous or uncivilised as hostile propaganda has led us to believe). Still, life wasn’t as much fun for the ladies as they would have liked. Courtly love sounded wonderfully exciting to them.

Marriage at the time was basically an economic contract. Your parents selected a prospective spouse for you (and this applied to young men as much as to young women) on the basis of the degree of advantage it would bring to the family. As long as you didn’t find the person repulsive the marriage would go ahead (actual forced marriages were always forbidden by the Church). It was a sensible system that worked but it was also a system that put the interests of family and society ahead of the interests of the individual. Marriage was about responsibility and duty. That’s not to say that marriages were loveless. If both parties accepted the situation and made the most of it strong bonds of affection could and did develop. And if those bonds of affection failed to develop and either party decided to seek emotional or sexual solace outside the marriage it was not considered to be the end of the world as long as it was done discreetly.

The new concept of love changed all this. Now the idea was that you would fall in love with someone before you married them. There was also a very strong emphasis on sex, and especially on women’s sexual pleasure. There was a simple way to know if you had found True Love or not. If your emotions were not coupled with sexual lust it wan’t True Love.

The writers of romances who promoted courtly love, writers like Chretien de Troyes, were not unaware of the dangers and Chretien certainly seems to have nourished the fond hope that couples would satisfy their emotional and sexual appetites within the safety and sanctity of the marriage bed. Of course in the real world that was never going to happen, and it didn’t always happen in the romances either (adultery makes for more exciting literature than faithful marriage).

For a long time the old and the new concepts of marriage co-existed and balanced each other out. The quest for True Love was important but responsibility and duty still mattered. You could choose your spouse, but you were expected to choose sensibly and to consider family and economic interests.

It all started to go wrong after the First World War. Responsibility and duty were now very old-fashioned notions. They were positively Victorian. And in the 1920s everything Victorian was of course assumed to be hopelessly bad, stupid, oppressive and worst of all old-fashioned.

And at around this time Hollywood came along. Romantic love was made to order for Hollywood. It provided exciting plots that women loved and it proved to be an ideal weapon with which to undermine marriage (Hollywood was fanatically devoted to sabotaging our civilisation right from the start). Romantic love was soon to reign supreme.

There are several major problems with the romantic love ideal. The biggest problem is that it implies that marriage is only really valid as long as True Love still flourishes. If True Love starts to fade, or if the sexual passion that is the unfailing indicator of True Love starts to falter, then marriage becomes oppressive. And surely it’s wicked to expect people to stay married if there’s no True Love any more? Romantic love therefore, in practice, implies that marriage is temporary and that it should be approached from a purely selfish perspective. It’s all about feelings. It’s all about me!

Romantic love is also quite useful from the point of view of social control. Our lives might be empty and meaningless and we might be just nameless faceless consumers but that’s OK because one day True Love will come along and then everything will be hunky dory. We won’t even notice the atomisation and alienation of modern society, or the crassness of our culture, or the way we’re lied to and manipulated. Because Love Conquers All.

sex, feminism and liberalism, part two

Part one can be found here.

Female sexuality is an absolute nightmare for feminism. It all but tore feminism apart during the feminist sex wars. The feminists who started spouting their slogans about all men being rapists, all sex being rape, about pornography being exploitation of women, about the wickedness of awful things like BDSM (bondage dominance and sado-masochism) that the patriarchy imposes on women. They naturally expected their pronouncements to be met by a chorus of praise from women.

Much to their horror many women, even fully paid up members of the feminist sisterhood, violently disagreed with them. These women objected that they actually liked having sex with men, many of them had no real issue with pornography (some of them enjoyed pornography). Even worse, it transpired that there were women who were happily engaging in consensual BDSM sex (even more embarrassing was the revelation that BDSM was incredibly popular among lesbians).

The stage was set for the bitter long drawn out war between the anti-sex feminists and the sex-positive feminists. It ended with a virtually complete victory for the sex-positive feminists.

This might sound like a happy ending. The anti-sex feminists like Andrea Dworkin were a crazy miserable lot and totally out of touch with the reality of female sexuality. Unfortunately we’re talking about feminists here so it goes without saying that there was and is lots of craziness on both sides. The sex-positive feminists can be pretty loony as well, and they’re the ones who’ve been supportive of much of the trans madness.

And being feminists even the sex-positive feminists tend to be control freaks. It’s not enough for them to be tolerant of outright perversions – they have to force everybody else to celebrate those perversions.

The problem of female sexuality remains unresolved for feminism. One problem is that for most women sex means sex with a man. The danger in that is that the man might enjoy it. Feminism can just about deal (with certain very stringent limitations) with the idea of a woman enjoying sex, but a man enjoying sex is definitely problematical.

Much more problematical is the feminine desire for dominant men. The reality is that lots of women actually enjoy feeling dominated, at least to a limited degree, in the bedroom. And some women take that desire to its logical conclusion and enjoy sexual practices that feminist theory simply cannot cope with. Feminist theory tells feminists that all that nasty stuff used to be forced on unwilling women by the patriarchy. There’s no room in feminist theory for women who think that the beastliness and aggressiveness of male sexuality is incredibly exciting and they want it. And feminists cannot abandon their theories – that would be terrifying.

Pornography was the main battlefield of the feminist sex wars. The total victory of the sex-positive feminists has to a large extent ended the debate on pornography. There are still Christians who are opposed to pornography but no-one listens to them.

One other thing that needs to be remembered is that male sexuality as it exists could not have survived the process of evolution unless it had a great deal of appeal to women. Sexual selection is a very potent evolutionary force. And female sexuality as it exists could not have survived unless it had a great deal of appeal to men.

An essential tenet of both feminism and liberalism is that men and women are basically interchangeable. Sex presents them with an enormous problem. No matter what they do they can’t eradicate the profound differences between male and female sexuality, and no matter what they do neither male nor female sexuality will conform to good liberal principles. Women will continue to want strong masculine men and men will continue to want pretty feminine women.

sex, feminism and liberalism, part one

There’s an extremely good post over at Oz Conservative, Accepting our monstrosity?

Canadian writer Stephen Marche, clearly a whiny male feminist, is aghast at the reality of male sexuality. Nothing unusual about that. Anything pertaining to reality always surprises liberals. But rather than merely mocking and laughing Mark carefully unpicks Marche’s babblings and in the process makes some very good points. And he demonstrates that Marche, in his own way, has uncovered some unpleasant truths. Being a liberal Marche naturally cannot deal with these truths or accept any of the conclusions they might lead to.

Marche is very upset over the brutality of male sexuality. Being a good male feminist he is ashamed of being male. Men are so beastly!

Mark quite rightly makes the point that

“there is an element in sex of men as the active and aggressive part and women as the responsive and receptive part.”

This is true, and of course it’s obvious to anyone with experience of the real world.

But the thing that really really upsets liberals, the thing they really will not face, is that on the whole women want sex to be this way. They like it. The big problem for liberals is female sexuality. Female sexuality just doesn’t work the way liberals want it to work. Amazingly enough most women are nauseated by the idea of having sex with whiny male feminists. They want to have sex with virile masculine men. No matter how virulently and enthusiastically they espouse feminist principles, no matter how bitter and angry they might be towards men, when it comes to the nitty gritty it is to a very large extent those beastly brutal masculine men who get women sexually aroused.

Women might like nice guys, but that doesn’t mean they want to sleep with those nice guys. Women might in an intellectual sense strongly disapprove of bad boys but they still get sexually excited by them and they still sleep with them.

None of this is surprising. Our survival as a species depended on having effective mating strategies. Women being attracted to the strongest most aggressive members of the tribe was a very effective mating strategy. Those were the men who could, if necessary, defend them. Men being attracted to the prettiest and most feminine females was an equally effective mating strategy. They were the females most likely to be fertile and most likely to be capable of successfully raising offspring.

The unpleasant truths (unpleasant for liberals and feminists) are that it’s perfectly normal and perfectly healthy for men to be masculine, that masculinity does indeed contain an element of aggressiveness, and that the aggressive element in masculinity is part of male sexuality. The other unpleasant truth is that it’s perfectly normal and perfectly healthy for women to respond sexually to this.

Liberals and feminists have now created a world in which the expression of masculinity has been all but outlawed. What this means in practice is that normal healthy masculinity has been repressed, so women in search of masculinity go looking for any kind of masculinity they can find. They usually find it in the sort of men who are obviously men they should have nothing to do with but the women can’t help themselves. Fundamental biological urges cannot be denied.

part two will follow

the battle for our children

An important recent post at The Knight and Drummer raises an issue that I’ve been concerned about for some time now. It is now obvious what the ultimate objective of the homosexual lobby is. It is unrestricted access to children for male homosexuals. This has always been the final objective, the only difference now is that they’re no longer making any secret of it.

In fact they have been pursuing this objective for decades. The sexualisation of children has been aggressively pushed in schools over a period of many years. Children have been exposed to sexual concepts at wildly inappropriate ages. And the sexual concepts to which they have been exposed have become steadily more sinister.

Over the past few years the gender identity nonsense has been used as a way to further advance this process. Extremely young children who have absolutely zero understanding of sex have been persuaded that they can change their gender. In many cases the parents have been pressured to go along with this. Most worrying is that many parents have been happy to do so – in our modern world a transgender child is a major status symbol.

A sexual interest in young boys has been a key part of the male homosexual sub-culture for at least two thousand years. We should not be surprised that they now intend to find ways to satisfy this interest without the inconvenience of being sent to prison. The homosexual lobby has taken an extraordinary interest in the education system and it’s no coincidence that they have done so.

Sceptics might object that they could not possibly get away with this. In fact they are getting away with it. And they have strategies which will help them to do so. The most successful is likely to be based on the idea that current age of consent laws are oppressive to children and repress childhood sexuality. It’s an evil strategy but that’s not going to stop them. We can also expect to hear sob stories (all of them phony) in the media about thousands of homosexual children committing suicide because their sexuality has been repressed.

It will be interesting to see which way women jump on this issue. Lesbians don’t share the obsessive sexual interest in children that male homosexuals display but they are always keen to make converts, and the best way to do so is to get them young. I imagine lesbians will mostly support male homosexuals on this issue.

But what about heterosexual feminists? Surely they won’t go along with any of this?

Much depends on whether heterosexual feminists are prepared to confront the homosexual lobby on this subject. These days very few people have the courage to stand against the homosexuals so I’m not hopeful. I do expect some major splits among feminists though, with many older feminists being appalled by the idea of children being turned into objects for the gratification of sexual lusts. Younger feminists will fully support the homosexuals. They’ve been thoroughly indoctrinated in homosexual and gender identity propaganda.

Christians as usual will wring their hands and start mumbling about fairness and equality and love and will do nothing of any consequence.

So far every single battle in the culture wars has been lost by Christians and social conservatives. We had better hope they don’t lose this one.

why our women have gone feral, part 2

As I hinted in my previous post on this topic western women have gone feral because they refuse to accept reality. They not only refuse to accept reality, they get angry when they encounter it. In that post I concentrated on the reasons young women turn feral. This time I’m looking at a couple of the reasons thirty-something and forty-something women go feral.

This also applies, bizarrely, to biological reality. The one great biological fact about women that cannot be evaded is the biological clock. Women have a very limited timeframe in which to have children. After 30 their chances of conceiving and carrying a child to term start to decline. After 35 those chances drop at a terrifying rate. By 40 the odds are not very favourable at all. Women do manage to have children in their mid-40s, and feminists and the media always like to point to such cases, but what they overlook is that those women were lucky. And they probably could afford some very expensive medical intervention as well. The brutal fact remains that after 40 the odds are stacked against the women wanting children.

Of course women have always accepted this biological fact. If they wanted to have children they understood that it was a very wise idea to aim to have the first child by the age of maybe 27 or 28, at the latest. Which meant that they needed to find a husband by around the age of 25 or so. Women have always accepted this biological fact, until feminism came along and assured them that they didn’t need to worry about facts any more. Facts were unfair and misogynistic. If reality was unpleasant then feminism would change reality!

As a result we now have large numbers of women who believe they can devote themselves to careers and sex until they’re 35 or so and then they can still have kids.

There’s another uncomfortable biological fact that women used to accept, even if they didn’t like it. Women reach their peak of attractiveness in their late teens and early 20s. After 30 their beauty starts to fade. A woman of 35 may still be beautiful, but she won’t be as beautiful as she was at 25. And a woman of 45 might still be quite attractive but she isn’t going to be anywhere near as pretty as she was at 25. Logically if a woman wants to maximise her chances of finding a good husband she should be on the lookout for one in her early 20s and should be aiming to have landed one by her mid-20s. Beauty isn’t everything and you don’t have to look like a supermodel to get a good husband but the reality is that if you’re a woman then beauty is a factor in attracting a mate and it’s sensible to use that asset while it’s still there.

This is another facet of reality that women don’t want to accept any more. They want to believe they can wait until they’re in their mid-30s (or even older) and for some reason they will have terrific high-status men queueing up to marry them.

This is the Sex and the City syndrome. Women think they can devote all their energies to a career, shopping and promiscuous sex and then in their late 30s a wonderful rich good-looking man will come along and beg them to marry him. It happened for Carrie Bradshaw so it can happen for any woman! The only trouble is, Sex and the City was pure fantasy. In reality why on earth would a  rich attractive man like Mr Big want to marry Carrie Bradshaw? He’s not exactly the sort of guy who’d be likely to be in the market for a used car but if he was he’d be looking for a late model low-mileage car with one careful previous owner. He wouldn’t be looking for a broken-down and rather battered-looking old clunker liker Carrie that had been driven by half the men in Manhattan. He would also not be interested in a woman who was clearly at an age when the chances of having even one child would be very slim. As for sex, Carrie will open her legs for him any time he asks anyway so why marry her in order to get access to something she’s giving away for free? In the real world Carrie would be resigning herself to an empty lonely purposeless life and would be thinking about buying a cat.

It’s probably no coincidence that Sex and the City was a fantasy foisted on women by homosexual men. The extent to which the modern worship of the homosexual male lifestyle has been indirectly responsible for making women crazy has never been properly explored. It’s a destructive lifestyle for men. For women it’s completely disastrous.