Public response came fast and furious, with people overwhelmingly mortified by Newman's inquisitorial display, shocked by witnessing the 'pleasant' face of feminism transform into Medusa-like destruction, yet glad to see feminism taken apart on a mainstream platform by Peterson's rational and eloquent debating style.
Unable to 'win' the debate with Peterson, Newman and her allies in the liberal spectrum nevertheless eked out a 'victory' by casting themselves as victims and Peterson's supporters as "vicious misogynists". To protect their ideological beliefs, the situation was spun into its exact opposite, when clearly it was Newman and her ilk who are misandrists bent on victimizing men. 'Security experts' were brought in to add a veneer of truth to their spin. No verification of any actual threat has emerged - not against Newman or Channel 4 anyway, though some were leveled at Peterson and his followers.
What is going on when someone who is a professed feminist rebukes another for expressing genuine desire that his female students and clients succeed in their professional careers? The short answer is Feminism. The longer answer is similar, but a more radical, extremist version of it which has taken hold in the mainstream and which many of its older advocates no longer recognize as Feminism.
Devastatingly low birth rates, high divorce rates, relationship dysfunction, and a war against the biological basis of male-female roles have resulted in the collapse of traditional society. And it can be traced back, in a variety of ways, to the feminist ideologues of the 20th century and the Marxist intellectual environment they emerged from. Like the 'bearded schizoids' of the 19th century, feminist ideologues have poisoned the well of traditional society in order to provoke revolution from within.
'For the first time since the 1970s, feminism is popular again and commanding the world's attention.'
So begins a recent op-ed in the UK's (ostensibly right-wing) Daily Telegraph, attributing its allegedly newfound popularity to the resurgence of 'right-wing deplorables'. But this is completely backwards. Feminism is only "commanding the world's attention" of late because, for the first time in decades, if not ever, its tenets are being publicly challenged. If the counter-culture seems to have increased in popularity of late, that's only because it has been prompted to kick back, via its dominance of state organs, against the rising tide of 'counter-counter-culture'.
The term 'feminism' was first coined by French socialist philosopher Charles Fourier (yes, a dude) in the course of envisioning his utopian future. Writing in the lead-up to and aftermath of the French Revolution, in revolt against both the old Catholic authorities and their doctrines and the new 'free market' and 'Enlightenment' ideals, Fourier claimed to have discovered, scientifically, the ultimate truth and end of all society: the omniarch - a global government ruled by feminist and socialist forces.
His ideas, particularly those of social utopia, would inform Marx and Engels, as well as Americans like Ralph Waldo Emerson. The loss of his father, his 'unscrupulous' uncle, and a predominantly feminized upbringing no doubt lent considerable weight to the feminine nature of his utopia.1 As his biographer writes,
No longer constrained by monogamy, they were free to form simultaneous erotic or companionate relationships with several men. Women would control reproduction, just as children would be free to choose between real and adoptive fathers. The relation between the child and the mother would no longer be disrupted by the father, nor would it be inhibited by the legal and religious authority which protected the father's power. Harmony was built upon the explicit elimination of such authority. Clearly, Fourier's own childhood, or rather the day-dreams conjured out of it, supplied much of the raw material from which this non-patriarchal utopia was composed.2Fourier's ideas would become the most widespread socialist ideas of the day, ultimately influencing Communism. In America they inspired the failed socialist colony Brook Farm. Ralph Waldo Emerson, an enthusiastic supporter of Fourier's ideas at first, became a counter-revolutionary after his experience. He writes:
Of course every visitor found that there was a comic side to this Paradise of shepherds and shepherdesses... The country members naturally were surprised to observe that one man ploughed all day and one looked out of a window all day... and both received at night the same wages.3Marx expressed great satisfaction at Fourier's attack on "every principle of existing society" while faulting it for its lack of revolutionary vigor.4 Marx would go on to write that, unknown to the bourgeoisie, "the real point aimed at by communists is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production." Upon the founding of what would become the pathocratic Soviet Union, Fourier's name was assigned a place of honor by the revolutionaries.5 The family was dismantled and, as Alexandra Kollontai wrote in 1920, the 'old family' was a thing of the past:
There is no escaping the fact: the old type of family has had its day. The family is withering away not because it is being forcibly destroyed by the state, but because the family is ceasing to be a necessity. The state does not need the family, because the domestic economy is no longer profitable: the family distracts the worker from more useful and productive labour. The members of the family do not need the family either, because the task of bringing up the children which was formerly theirs is passing more and more into the hands of the collective. In place of the old relationship between men and women, a new one is developing: a union of affection and comradeship, a union of two equal members of communist society, both of them free, both of them independent and both of them workers.Nowadays, when discussing feminism with just about anyone, especially someone of a liberal or progressive bent, one is bound to hear, "Of course Feminism was a good thing - women's suffrage, the right to an education, the abandonment of spurious notions of 'inherent evil'." One easily forgives such sentiments because, who doesn't want equality of opportunity for women? But 'feminists' have turned such naive acceptance of the apparent positive nature of their 'cause' into a smokescreen that hides a pernicious drive that threatens to destroy civil society as we know it.
'Feminism,' as it was formulated in the 18th and 19th centuries, was a schizoidal and mentally-deranged experiment from the get-go. By evolutionary design, men and women overwhelmingly fulfill fundamentally different roles, and ironically, many Western women, even activists, accepted these roles while agitating for equality of opportunity.
But by the mid-20th century the Great Feminist Matriarchs had taken this twisted child of Feminist ideology and turned it into the most misogynistic idea mankind has ever seen. Most were explicitly Communist in their approach - warping a fundamentally Western desire for freedom into a revolutionary construct for acquiring personal power.
With an ability to sexualize and de-humanize women more than any man could ever want to, the 'great feminist authors' make it clear through their writings that they intended to destroy the female in order to weaken Western society. There is perhaps no more misogynistic and female-hating mind than that of a die-hard feminist.
Twisted Sisters
Fundamentally disappointed by the fact that women were still playing the role of housewife, the feminist Germaine Greer wrote in The Female Eunuch that feminism had 'failed' - with particular resentment for the woman herself:
Five years ago it seemed clear that emancipation had failed: the number of women in Parliament had settled at a low level; the number of professional women had stabilized as a tiny minority; the pattern of female employment had emerged as underpaid, menial and supportive. The cage door had been opened but the canary had refused to fly out.8Greer didn't seem to consider that levels stabilized at low levels because women made the choices they wanted to make. However, it must be noted that Greer's litmus test for 'emancipation' was, in her own words, the drinking of one's own menstrual blood. As she wrote in The Female Eunuch, "Any woman who believes she's emancipated and hasn't tasted her own menstrual blood has a long way to go, baby." 9 Emancipation, for her, was emancipation from sanity.
Spurred on by this pathology, many Feminist Manifestos were published, each aimed at putting the fire under the collective female behind and turning them into revolutionaries. Simone de Beauvoir published her 900-page tome The Second Sex in 1953. Ten years later, Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique in 1963, with both Germaine Greer and Shulamith Firestone publishing their own tomes in 1970. Common to them all were the tones of oppression and revolution, with hatred for both men and women dripping from every word.
Each writer accepted as fundamental that women were in some way different from men - and their understanding of said differences filled volumes, ranging from the way they dressed, their attitudes, their roles in society, etc. It was from this keen understanding that the Feminist Matriarchs understood what their revolution needed to accomplish, as well as their tactics for getting it done. Men's love for women would be their weapon. The destruction of the family, and emasculating men, would be their goal.
Shulamith Firestone wrote exactly what needed to happen in The Dialectics of Sex: "Unless revolution uproots the basic social organization, the biological family - the vinculum through which the psychology of power can always be smuggled - the tapeworm of exploitation will never be annihilated." She elaborated, with characteristic bluntness: "Pregnancy is barbaric"; childbirth is "like shitting a pumpkin"; and childhood is "a supervised nightmare." Firestone didn't love women; she just hated life.
Like a predator homing in on its prey, Simone de Beauvoir identified in the first 'Great Feminist Manifesto' of the 1950s, The Second Sex, exactly what needed to be exploited to incubate the revolution; male empathy:
There is nonetheless one advantage woman can gain from her very inferiority: since from the start she has fewer chances than man, she does not feel a priori guilty toward him; it is not up to her to compensate for social injustice, and she is not called upon to do so. A man of goodwill feels it his duty to "help" women because he is more favored than they are; he will let himself be caught up in scruples or pity, and he risks being the prey of "clinging" or "devouring" women because they are at a disadvantage.10Germaine Greer, author of The Female Eunuch, was very explicit that Communist ideals were the only thing that could provide 'liberation':
The New Left has been the forcing house for most movements, and for many of them liberation is dependent upon the coming of the classless society and the withering away of the state.11But what was their inspiration? Surely it was equality, or freedom for women? No, their inspiration was a deep loathing of men, women, and children. This pathology is nowhere more clear than in Firestone's definition of love. For her, love was "the height of selfishness: the self attempts to enrich itself by the absorption of another being."12 And her account of rearing children? It couldn't get more disgusting:
The mother who wants to kill her child for what she has had to sacrifice for it (a common desire) learns to love that same child only when she understands it is as helpless, oppressed as she is and by the same oppressor; then her hatred is directed outward and 'motherlove' is born. But we will go further: our final step must be the elimination of the very conditions of femininity and childhood themselves that are so conducive to the condition of the oppressed, clearing the way for a fully 'human' condition.13Family is oppression - nature is oppression - men are oppression - women and children must revolt. Firestone raised her voice for the total destruction of the Western family unit, and the New Yorker lauded her.
Marriage was fundamentally oppressive because, as Shulamith notes, men "cannot love and never will be able to." 14 Indeed, if love is what Germaine Greer said it was, it's unlikely any man of goodwill would be interested in it. Greer is clear when she writes, "If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition, it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry." 15 Hundreds of thousands of copies of their books were sold, and their adherents began a long and slow march through the institutions, where being female was their power, and claiming victimhood was their tactic. But it was Betty Friedan who did most to wage war on 'the most fundamentally oppressive institution' - marriage.
The War on Marriage & the Family
In The Feminist Mystique Friedan dishonestly depicts herself as a simple housewife who understood the spiritual needs of the typical American woman. She was anything but.
Friedan had joined the Young Communist League as a youth and had twice attempted to join the Communist Party as an adult, after a professor of hers at Smith College introduced her to Feminism. This professor was also the head of a Communist front group and had been a fee-paying Communist for years, divorcing her anti-Communist husband. Friedan became an avid writer for Communist causes and came to endorse the Cause. From then on, for her, "The emancipation of women becomes possible only when women are enabled to take part in production on a large, social scale, and when domestic duties require their attention only to a minor degree."
After Betty Friedan started an activist women's organization called the National Organization for Women (NOW), its activists helped launch a number of legal initiatives for equal rights in the workplace, the outlawing of marital rape, and ultimately the implementation of no-fault divorce laws nationwide. It's no coincidence that the first modern no-fault divorce law was enacted in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution in December 1917. The same revolutionary forces at work in Soviet Russia also successfully re-wrote much of the American legal system - both criminal and civil law.
The effect on society has been catastrophic and, as many note, likely irreversible. While half of marriages end in divorce, wives now initiate close to 70% of all of them, and joint custody of children is awarded to men only 20% of the time. What no-fault divorce laws mean are that any partner can initiate a divorce for any reason whatsoever. This translates into a colossal intrusion of government into the homes of a large percentage of American families - all under the guise of 'female empowerment'. As Stephen Baskerville writes in The New Politics of Sex:
Divorce instantly destroys fatherhood and, by extension, parenthood. The moment one spouse files for divorce, even if it is literally for "no fault" of the other spouse, the innocent parent enters the penal system: to raise his children as he sees fit according to his own values - to even be with his children without government authorization - is henceforth a crime for which he can be arrested and incarcerated indefinitely without trial. And there will be no record of the incarceration. Few enterprises have forged so intimate and elaborate a public-private symbiosis. More than four decades of unrestrained divorce has created a vast industry with a stake in maximizing it. David Schramm cautiously estimated that divorce cost the public $33.3 billion annually in 2003.16According to Charles Murray, in 1963 a divorced person headed only 3.5% of households in the US - regardless of education level.17 From 1960 to the late 1990s the number of children living without their biological father increased from 17% to 36% - and 70% of children in state institutions were from fatherless homes.18 90% of all runaway or homeless children were from fatherless homes. Now a record number of people never even marry - they are, no doubt, haunted by the divorce of their parents, or incapable of finding a marriageable partner in such a dysfunctional society. No surprise, then, that more women are childless than at any other recorded time.
The US birth rate has dropped from 81.6 (for 1,000 people) in 1950 to 22.3 in 2015, and the general fertility rate has fallen for six straight years now, according to the New York Times. In After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order, author Emmanuel Todd writes about his 1975 prediction of the collapse of the Soviet Union. He writes:
Trained as I was as both a historian and a demographer, I declared, contrary to conventional thinking, that the lower birth rate in the Soviet Union - 42.7 births for one thousand inhabitants in the years 1923-1927, 26 for the years 1950-1952, and 18.1 in 1975 - would cause perfectly normal Russian citizens to rise up and overthrow communism. In the case of Russia, as with France and Germany, the transition was a particularly unsettled period during which the changes in sexual behavior aggravated the disorientation linked to the rise of literacy. This disorientation corresponds to the Stalinist era.19I am no demographer, so I am not arguing that this statistic predicts the collapse of the United States. However, it points out a deep similarity between the 'feminism' of the Soviet Union and the 'feminism' of the modern West. Changes in sexual behavior are triggering a societal bewilderment and frustration, one that is exactly what the early revolutionaries wanted.
Weaponization of Sex
Feminist have long urged everyone to explore their sexuality; they have effectively turned that sexuality into a political weapon. No longer are sex crimes based on objective evidence; now they are based on the subjective interpretation of the victim - a female who is rarely doubted. So, while young couples are encouraged to explore their sexuality by night, the women are encouraged to report a rape by day. And, if not that extreme, then they are encouraged to report their man for being a 'poor lover,' as is made obvious in the Aziz Ansari and Cat Person stories that went viral earlier this month.
Or, if you simply want to exercise your power over a male, you can always falsely accuse. There are many stories like these. Consider that of professor Steven Galloway. A chair at the University of British Columbia, Galloway was accused of rape and, without even as much as an inquiry or even an alert that he had been accused, the University issued a public statement condemning him and insinuating to the public that he was a 'violent serial rapist'. Even after a judge found no evidence of sexual abuse, Steven Galloway was still fired from his job.
Justice has been inverted and, using political power, feminists have managed to criminalize men - their number one enemy - destroy fatherhood, destroy motherhood, criminalize sexuality, and make it a hate crime not to call a she a zhe, or a wym, or a worm. As Stephen Baskerville writes in The New Politics of Sex:
Many have discerned [in Feminism] an affinity with older ideologies like Marxism, but few appreciate how far sexual radicalism expands socialist logic and intrusiveness. "Women's liberation . . . the most influential neo-Marxist movement in America, has done to the American home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin is irreversible," writes Ruth Wisse. "By defining relations between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society, the unit from which all other social institutions draw their strength."Conclusion
These feminists created and control the vast and impenetrable social services industries that most journalists and scholars find too dreary to scrutinize. In the US they dominate the $53 billion federal Administration for Children and Families, itself part of the gargantuan trillion dollar Department of Health and Human Services. They are both dispensers and recipients of its $350 billion grant program ("larger than all other federal agencies combined," according to HHS) funding local "human services" or "social services" bureaucracies - by far the largest patronage machine ever created, reaching into almost every household in the land and making the Soviet nomenklatura look ramshackle. They created and control the "family law sections" of the bar associations and family courts, which they modified into their image from an earlier incarnation as juvenile courts (rationalized by "caring" and "compassion"). And they dominate the forensic psychotherapy industry, with its close ties to the courts, social service agencies, and public schools. By no means are they all doctrinaire devotées of The Feminine Mystique or The Female Eunuch. But when push comes to shove, they understand that their power comes from being female.20
For the Feminist, the war on the family has been a resounding success - women have been 'liberated' from the 'comfortable concentration camp' of the family. In the process women are more likely to be unhappy, while many young women grow up feeling that a natural desire to raise a family is fundamentally wrong.
For men, separated from their fathers, American and Western masculinity has never been more precarious. The female has taken their role, and they have nothing else to provide. The very traits that fathers instilled in their sons - the use of reason, the capability to suffer and work without reward, the desire to be responsible for the family - these traits have died, leaving an entire generation at the whim of postmodern, radical Leftist revolutionaries.
Devastatingly low birth rates, high divorce rates, relationship dysfunction and a war against instinctual concepts of male and female - all of this explains the immense popularity of Jordan Peterson. This is why his YouTube videos are predominantly viewed by men. In a faithless world, where even the most basic human truths are assaulted on a daily basis, Peterson offers the 'Logos', the struggle for Truth. Young men and women are starving for it. The veneer of 'victimhood' is growing thin.
References
1. Introduction to Charles Fourier's The Theory of the Four Movements, p. xiii.
2. Ibid.
3. The complete works of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Volume 10, p. 367.
4. Introduction to Charles Fourier's The Theory of the Four Movements, p. x
5. Ibid.
6. John Lott and Larry Kenny's How Dramatically Did Women 's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?, p. 5.
7. Charles Murray's Coming Apart: The State of White America, p. 4.
8. Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch, p. 13.
9. Ibid, p. 57.
10. Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex, p. 827.
11. Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch, p. 13.
12. Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectics of Sex: The Feminist Case for Revolution, p. 128.
13. Ibid, p. 104.
14. Ibid, p. 135.
15. Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch, p. 358.
16. Stephen Baskerville's The New Politics of Sex, p. 73.
17. Charles Murray's Coming Apart: The State of White America, p. 3.
18. What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?, p. 11.
19. Emmanuel Todd's After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order, p. 36.
20. Stephen Baskerville's The New Politics of Sex, p. 46.
Reader Comments
"For men, separated from their fathers, American and Western masculinity has never been more precarious. The female has taken their role, and they have nothing else to provide. The very traits that fathers instilled in their sons - the use of reason, the capability to suffer and work without reward, the desire to be responsible for the family - these traits have died, leaving an entire generation at the whim of postmodern, radical Leftist revolutionaries.
.
Devastatingly low birth rates, high divorce rates, relationship dysfunction and a war against instinctual concepts of male and female - all of this explains the immense popularity of Jordan Peterson. This is why his YouTube videos are predominantly viewed by men. In a faithless world, where even the most basic human truths are assaulted on a daily basis, Peterson offers the 'Logos', the struggle for Truth. Young men and women are starving for it. The veneer 'victimhood' is growing thin."
Those are TRUTH to the CORE!!! of our modern civilization. Bravo!!!.
If men have these traits, and they are strong traits, why are they abandoning them? Is a leftist, postmodern, radical revolutionary movement stronger than the many thousands of years worth definite gender roles and relative harmony?
I think the point is that they aren't demonstrating them...
the use of reason - Definitely not, did you watch that video? the capability to suffer and work without reward - Not for the family, for their children maybe, although I would say as a parent that children are a reward within themselves the desire to be responsible for the family - I think that, if you agree with the statements in this article and objective statistics at least, feminists have failed pretty hard in this one. Since responsibility to "the family" as a unit is secondary in their motives.
By 'they' here I'm referring to radical feminists like Greer etc.
'Kind of suggests' vs 'actually suggests' are two very different things. What you have done here is set up a straw-man argument and then called it ridiculous. The thrust of the article is that these homes are unhealthy; they damage society and weaken future generations.
And yes, I would agree that there are a number of reasons why fathers are not present in the home. As I argue in the article, the historical development of radical Feminism, which has made divorce easier while doing its best to 'phase out' traditional marriage, is a major one.
Feminism is a factor in the break up of the traditional family home. But then, so were both world wars and their influence on the dynamic of the family structure. None of it can be separated, none of it exists in a vacuum. And there's always a root to the problem and I don't believe feminism is at the root. Feminism is positively phototropic.
Decisions... decisions...
More's the pity...
Its like the Left and Right issue... They, Feminism and Patriarchy, thrive off of each other... The age old never-ending 'Battle of the Sexes' adage. Pffft!
The flames of Feminism is so easy to fan because ol' Patriarchy was running rampant, unchecked by men, with its pig-headed egotistical narcissistic boner-driven dick swilled notions of 'order and decency' hypocrisy up its own arse.... You know... Kinda similar to the likes of such EffingtonIII using nature as an excuse to justify being an eternal man-toddler...
Now everyone getting their knickers in a twist (pun defo intended) because women are taking advantage of the manufactured sown seeds of discontent 'divide and conquer' 'impose-more-regulation' and 'invasion-of-privacy' political climate we're soiled in.
If people want to be serious tackling Feminism issues of today... Then the same people got to be just as serious acknowledging the problems of Patriarchy's past too - not leaving it all to whiny SJW's and Snowflakes for Cultural-Marxists to take advantage of.
Patriarchy vs Feminism is one big game of Foreplay gotten out of control at the expense of children...
Lee Van Cleef...what a face!
Lee Van Cleef - RIP "BEST OF THE BAD": I'd happily accept his Patriarchy all day long
That Fourier was something else: [Link] ^^ That is so USSR! ^^ Therein lies the draw of leftist ideology; they're not always wrong in their criticisms of society. Their solutions though, are iffy at best. Oh well, at least when this Founding Father did Feminism, he considered the betas!
I literally have nothing to add...just...epic. You pretty much said it all, succinctly, with footnotes
Women make great sandwiches! and just who would want to live in a world without stockings, high heels, painted fingernails and toes. and what about the cats? in a world without our womenfolk.. they would be on an endangered species inside of a week..
[Link]
I rip stockings, break heels and give the painted and shellacked nails the finger. I can't work with any of those things. Besides it's against policy and procedure within my organisation. Stocking are really great for the garden, however, my plants really love them.
Maybe in my days off, when I'm trying to seduce someone, lol. No really, it's hilarious.... So, this is what a woman needs to do to be 'armed and dangerous'....I'll take that under advice.... No really it's very cute!
Reminds me of: [Link]
And this madness is spreading from America to Europe. There is nothing to add, except this: As the article mentions, THIS is the reason the birthrate in Western societies is negative, and why the Muslim immigrants who wrap their women in black bed sheets and beat them if they open their mouths, and kill them if they dishonor their families, have six and eight children, while White women have one or two, or none at all. And why so many White men choose other men as life partners instead of bitchy, spoiled and demanding harridans selling their precious Jewel Box to their men for financial support. Why give a woman babies, only to have her steal them from you then demand money to support them and her for the next 18 years, on penalty of jail and garnishment of any wages you earn?
In 50 years, after Muslims have become majorities in the West thanks to Feminism and the resultant lack of White babies, these spoiled bitches will find themselves living under Sharia Law, wrapped head-to-toe in black cloth, and publicly flogged, or beheaded, if they do not give men the respect that Islam demands.
The pendulum, dear ladies, will inevitably swing back and hit you in the head. I hope it hurts.
You know if just a small percent of western men started doing something constructive this would all be dealt with, right?
Don't lay all the blame on women, we are all part of the same ecosystem.
You seem to think all is already lost, and Europe is becoming a caliphate in 50 years. why so defeatist? Do you really think TPTB would allow Islamic rule anyway? It's just a stepping stone for tighter control and uprooting our peoples by forced diversity.
There could also be an ice age in this timeframe, or an EMP that takes out all electricity. Or maybe an asteroid, that would really hurt, and quite the wakeup call. I can't foresee the future but I hope to have a lot of grandchildren and other kinfolk in 50 years that I can help influence and support to continue the good fight. They haven't destroyed this family, and they never will
Muslim women endure a sort of 25 to 30 year-long 'rite of passage' putting-up with objectification and social-submission - by which time any sons labored finally become 'men' whom in turn hoist up their mothers so high atop a pedestal as to essentially render the mother incapable of saying or doing any wrong... Ever! (this is when sons often fall out with their fathers btw)... In fact, Muslim mothers are held up in such high regard by their sons as to effectively become the 'goddess' feminine-principle missing in Islam.
This is why sons are particularly important for Islamic mothers - more so than for fathers I'd argue... and why so many Muslim women quite literally allow their sons to get away with murder when growing up.
Thank you for putting this together, Corey.
I think that libertarians and anarcho-capitalists give a good description of the problem, economic socialism creates victims, does not try to empower them to move forward but make them dependent on daddy state, they aren't aware of the economic reality, of the differences of each individual, of productivity and creativity etc. But like every ideology the libertarians go to the other extreme explaining the magic formula that will improve everything. Isn't that one of the first steps of the ponerization, the creation of an ideology or its excessive identification with it as the only way to solve the problems of the world?
More than Russia, I think the most important thing that Putin shows is how to govern as an adult in a pragmatic way without losing empathy, that in order to do things well there must be sincere dialogue between all, countries and internal political opponents, proposals based on reality, commitment on both sides, respect for the differences between countries to reach agreements not try to impose the will on the other, respect national and international laws, and that big political structures are not necessary to govern in the information age, only capable politicians, or I hope that :D etc.
Only in the modern day, with cushy inside jobs with climate control do women want to be in the "labor" force. For the vast majority of history, labor was not something women could even do, or would want to do. The intellectual jobs of professor/academic, or entrepreneur were invented not very long ago. So applying "standards" and "rights" to history retroactively doesn't take into account that most people died young and brutally, often of starvation through famine. Most of the "labor" was back breaking agricultural labor or the building of monuments and castles or churches.
Patriarchy was also a system that basically existed for the upper classes, as the overwhelming majority of human beings throughout history were poor, often indentured servants living hand to mouth with no legal protections. Patriarchy was a way for mothers to insulate their daughters from deprivation by instituting a Kabuki Theater of male "power."
In the end it's all talk. Most of it is retroactive misinterpretation of anecdotes through the feminist lens.
Depends where. For example, women across the vast harsh climatic-extreme plains of the Eurasian Steppes for millennia were often expected to work alongside their men out in all elements to sweat and toil. They'd do it gladly - certainly once the blossom-period of the early child-bearing years were behind. Such women were always known to be strong hardy and proud. They'd pick you up and toss you about like a rag-doll, Atreides...
Men are more capable of brute force, maximized over a short period of time. Their forte is sudden exertion and quick decision making. They have balls.
Women are more capable of brute force, of a lesser amount, per se, but extended for a long period. Their forte is stamina and repetitive behaviors. They have incubation.
Both men and women are susceptible to mind control. I would say women somewhat more. Men, though, are easily mind-controlled through the use of women.
Got that?
ned,
out
At least, under the conditions imposed by Sott and at the present 'time'.
But I would also say--fairly confidently--overall.
We are all in pretty bad shape though.
ned,
out
Hey Joe.
Whaddya know?
Great site.
Less hype.
ned
Shoulda said four.
Make that FOUR commenters above me.
ned,
OUT
"They'd pick you up and toss you about like a rag-doll, Atreides..." I'd gladly pay to watch...
One of the more accurate articles ever to appear at Sott.
There are two types of human social/physical/mental/emotional interaction and activity:
Consensual and voluntary.
Non-consensual and non-voluntary.
Thanks to the psychopath, we know and do only one type.
Guess which one?
ned, out
To go to the roots is to forsake the entanglement of the branches.
The 'war' in the Family of Humankind is of a dissociated fragmentation.
Terror fragments. Rage fragments.
That which is excluded is denied, and becomes itself source of a denial.
So the 'victim' becomes the basis of vengeance upon whatever and whoever is assigned cause of 'lack of wholeness and connection in life'. This becomes the sense that 'power' can only be gotten and maintained through 'justified' vengeance.
The subjective dissociated personality, (not truly presently relating), is predicated (rooted) in a belief in power of our personal survival having to be at expense of others.
Within the mask - all is suffered as 'real' but when the present relationship is opened to, the devices and nature of the mask or person is revealed.
Mis-identification, sets off from a false or incomplete and unresolved basis.
We CAN look at the world of effects as 'reality' and assign causes there to make war on <whatever> or seek to change - without relating presently.
That an opportunism operates upon the human 'conditioning' is ultimately the means to awaken to that it is conditionING and not fixed meanings from which there can be no escape.
Becoming aware of the devices by which we deny and exclude disowned parts of our greater SELF, will never occur while the 'justified vengeance, or justified defence against feared avengers' is fuelled and re-enacted and re-seeded.
On the other hand talking to the roots may find no one listening, because they only seek answer in the frame of their sense of grievance. Even with Jordan Peterson's example in the Ch4 interview, the many see it as a victory of war and not an illumination of an honesty of relationship. He did extend worth to her - and she did receive it - and yes it did disarm her.
We cannot open real communication with someone we despise or look down to, any more than with one we idolise or give power to.
The parasitic and destructive use to which denial is put is exemplified by DOING the thing you accuse the 'other' of. And of course this is done using the word 'denier' as a term of invalidation by which to deny a voice, a debate a revisiting and reintegrating or resolving.
Communication must both listen and speak, give and receive, to be true.
If I demand equality, I am not living it.
How do I live equality amidst a hierarchy?
By not invalidating my place, my participation, my witnessing.
If I give in the measure I would receive then I have to relate to people as they are and not as I want - or fear - or hate them to be.
Looking past the personality has to first look upon it, just as steering out of a skid has to momentarily steer into it.
The moment of traction and connection restores a true relation in which to move (communicate ourself) truly.
Humanity is then skidding toward the brink because we are at war within our self and thus with each other, Broken culture, broken family, broken self in managed and manipulated 'identities' gotten from grievance. The lie covers over a wish to be as you are not, and hides under more lies to justify and protect in fear of exposed illegitimacy. Truth is a true 'father' and its branches and fruit create by sharing, not by denial and exclusion, division and war. We meet our shared being in the world by living the true of who we are - which is also a gift from everyone in our life.
Smorgasbord
Of
Tasty
Testamonies
I have been watching my generation of American women with sadness..We grew up, were coming to puberty, when women were burning bras and protesting the wage-gap in the streets( Steinem, et al in 70's) . My own mother, born 1941, was of the first generation of US women to have one of those "cushy, air-conditioned" jobs, at a major corporation. Our home was fatherless, so she had to work ( 1966-forward) or put us up for adoption to family or strangers. We were told this, reminded of this..a lot..not just by her, but by all the adults around us....lol. She resented having to work, but enjoyed the accolades and interactions with others...the independence money gave her...she was in "management"...it was also a fantastic, well-paid job with excellent benefits... and only a few women , in the right social class , were even considered for these. Difficult as it was, she managed to support 5 people ( 4 of them 8 years old or less) with no other support. Couldn't happen today --these types of jobs are extremely rare in USA, now.
As a child growing up in this unfriendly mess..I can definitely say it was NOT a good thing for our mother to be so otherwise occupied..But our father was inept and coddled, a spoiled only-child of moderately well-to-do parents; she asked him to leave...and he left .. said he was too sick being an alcoholic to care for us..lol.. ((( it was all the rage back in the day to say you were "sick" and could not stop something because it was a "sickness"...from him, it was total BS.. he left and was making 6 figs for quite awhile--spent every dime on himself, didn't care for his widowed mom, either.)))..of course, he really left, to another state, so he would not come under court order to pay his fair share..he never did step up and paid for "trinkets" every now and then, but not consistently... he even had a 5th child , same thing but without the booze..the same lack of provision , materially... In fact, I bailed-out both parents, now deceased, financially at least once in their lives..my mother ( and 2 of her offspring) completely destroyed our family over money, in the end. Money , turns out, is the value.... that is what really has meaning....not life, not love, not family..not any of the things espoused , taught to me , like "do unto others"...NOPE.... it's about MONEY.
What I saw and lived through was that ....unless one , as a US woman, wanted to be subjected to "deprivations" ( sexual, monetary, intellectual) then ya gotta have yer own cash..and it cannot be shared decision cash, b/c humans are greedy and careless, lack impulse control-- and they often become dishonest and violent when put under pressure to meet obligations....the men , they have no real love or care for their women or children.. they only care about money, booze, sex..self-indulgence...and lately, internet porn has destroyed many men's natural sexuality ( IMHO)..Women on the other hand were/are little more than prostitutes...selling their wombs and attention to the highest bidder, and when that didn't work--getting pregnant was/is a sure fire way to entrapment and requisite financial aid. Gross. All of it. Completely toxic and anti-human.
So..all things aside..men, women..sex, no sex..work, no work....children, no children....it really comes down to MONEY. We have set up a system of animalistic survival..everyone is grabbing and groaning and grifting for MONEY....eliminate the "MONEY".. and that would solve much..if we must continue in this nightmare, well we see where it's going..more people have less...only 0.7% control almost HALF of the global GDP. So, it's really about the money; we actually have to purchase our survival here. That's the flaw, along with the enforced patriarchy..when men no longer control the material world by force, gunpoint....then yes equality will come. NOT in my lifetime, unless that wave is a BIG one and can wash out the small nuggets of gold and precious crystals...(gold/crystals= LuckiRox) .The rest is just a whole lotta dirt and rocks, huge pile that is a big mess to clean up and takes a lot of space, time, energy to deal with it..... No Lucki Rox..lol..just "rocks" in that junk pile.
I honestly don't know..it's getting so difficult to even live, to survive physically, regardless of your gender. About half of the women I know, my age(50's) , don't have children-- didn't want to be tied down and dependent on a man who couldn't /wouldn't provide, so aren't married , either. As they near retirement, the ones with children are caring for grandchildren..their husbands long gone and hooked up with a 20-something kid with large...well.. with largesse..shall we say. My friends are doing it for survival...they know they will have to depend on their adult children..hubby long gone, no retirement plan for housewives and moms who have been replaced by an (ex?) porn-star... Some of my friends are gay women..and they are the most "set"..they had good educations, careers and no children, no expensive divorces ( though many gay partnerships end in complete financial devastation for one partner, as there are no legal protections.. yes I know they can be made.. but generally, they aren't..). All the queers are living large and the heterosexuals are babysitting for future promise of "care" and "love".(food/shelter)....I'm sure they do love and care for their grandchildren, but they would also like to rest and maybe travel, read, write..etc..you know, retire with some dignity..???...What in the world ??
Of course the men my age.., another story. They have access to the economy through favored pay and positions given only to them --still happens all the time, every day..especially in more impoverished areas of the country. These men are with young women , usually half their age...NOW they will commit and have responsible role in children, NOW they will step up and provide..but only because they have HUGE war chests of cash to do it..the women who helped them get there ???((( remember Betty Roderick ?? lafn.. she expressed it....in the extreme..but ya...makes them kinda crazy with rage, and why not ??))) The older women have been tossed aside for the new, more expensive model..NO RETIREMENT benefits for women who raised children in a non-wage job. NONE>! It's about the MONEY.
So, the feminism..yep a Marxist tool...multiple generations have been harmed by it..and so the same is true of patriarchy.. the reality of family relationships these days is sooooo dower. I do not even know a man ,under 30 years of age, who is actually taking care of his children and wife , financially. They are NOT doing this. What I see -firsthand -is that they have sex , have children, with someone they don't know well, marriage not even a consideration... and they don't marry in the USA so that the child can be taken care of through welfare given to the mother..there are actually entire families , 3 generations, with no man who has EVER paid for his children's daily needs.., or even is in their lives. It's about the MONEY.
On the other hand.. I know a man who was released from prison , for selling cannabis, after some years incarcerated. He came OUT of prison owing his ex-wife(actually the court system) $80,000++ in arrears for child support payments. His 3 adult children are all professionally employed, now. He cannot rent a nice place ( forget buying) , cannot get a drivers' license, cannot open a bank account., cannot get housing or food stamps or ANY public assistance , as a felon and as a "dead-beat-dad"......Of course he cannot gain sustainable employment nor qualify for student financial aid, either..as a "drug-related" felon....he rides a BICYCLE to a manual labor, construction gig..he's white and 62 years old, his body just about WORN to the BONE from the extreme circumstances he endures daily....( yep, this is 'merica..).... His ex-wife supported herself and the kids dealing weed and living on welfare, while he was away....Too, she had lots of men friends with her weed biz and all.. lol... But nobody who wanted to be "Daddy"...The kids ??? Too busy self-indulging to help him, but they -at least- are all taking care of their children...but..all their wives work outside the home, as well...I have met and spoken to each..turns out they back-lashed into a decent lifestyle after the insecure horror of their own childhood.....But, their father ???..SMH...Even though he's out of prison walls, he will never be free.. just from the child-support claim, alone.....That's the other side of mad-money.
It's not about all this nonsense, these platforms, these "movements", really. To me...Nope.... It's about money. Did you see this study ?? The one about chimps taught how to use tokens (money) for food exchange ??? [Link] Turns out that very shortly after learning the system...the female chimps started prostituting, trading sex for tokens (food)..and the males became violent and competitive with each other, the females ,and the young, too. Are we but chimps ?? It would appear , so. Monkey-mind hits a new tone ??...lol.
New system of exchange needed....one that cannot be used to EXTRACT what is not freely offered...desirably given .. one that cannot be disrupted by emotions.. bad decisions..bad behavior from any one person or group... End the mad-money and patriarchy crashes....feminism,also will end without the need for money to survive. .it's about money.. .but for god's sake.. don't have children in this mess. I didn't have them b/c I could not guarantee that they would be safe and unharmed from the mad-money-system... and everything else we face, right now... There is waaay too much human suffering, needlessly and without reward or growth..just a complete train-wreck of extraction with no benefit at all to the collective, to the species....We need to clean this mess up before bringing any more souls on board. It's cruel to have children , this being the case, as it is. Just my 2 cents.
I loved this article and all the juice it squeezed. Good stuff, including all the comments.
Where's that wave when ya need it bad ?? Surfin'-in -the -USA...lol...
Lucki Rox
"It's always about the money"...
Now we have come to where women are drunk with the greed of empowerment. They're lining up for a turn to get up to the spotlight and microphone with a feeding frenzy, without the slightest realization that they're being marketed by the media and the corps, who earnestly want them to over consume their products for greedy profit margins. The banks, Hollywood, big business, governments, intelligentsia...all of these and more are disingenuously touting this as 'progressive'.
Then there's the fact for millennia, there have been many cultures of matriarchy. Asia has been, Catholics too. It's not like patriarchy has been the one and only. The big difference today is the upheaval of cultural norms that, for better or worse, are being controlled by unscrupulous greedy individuals for nefarious ends.
This is as much about ponerology (and authoritarian followers) as it is about these crazed Marxist feminists of yesteryear, and it should send shivers down the spines of both men and woman alike.
On Friday's Health & Wellness Show, Pierre said something I noted (a quote from him if I've got it right) that is to be remembered as the opposite polarity of this feminist coin, the con-job infecting society:
[Link]
Since he's given to using the entirely dubious term 'sexist' quite a lot, one can only assume Jordan Peterson is a 'male feminist', I mean, I don't even know any women that use that word. He also refers to transvestites as 'transgenders', addresses them as 'she', etc, how very 'post-modern'.
Camille Paglia was not-quite-accurate-but-close-enough when she said "Sex is non-verbal".
So-called 'sexual politics' is a case of 'formatory apparatus' interfering with things that in the sane run of things would be completely out of its jurisdiction.
Same with re-instating-the-idea-of-the-family-as-a-political-necessity - formatory thinking that most probably only end up with Addams Family Values.
When the formatory centre steps in to unpick the mess that was made by formatory thinking in the first place, you can be pretty sure things are gonna get worse, nurse.
Actually, its not very 'post-modern'... He's showing himself to be an old fogey struggling to keep up with ever-changing demands of 'gender-fluidity' and getting things hopelessly mixed-up. Any post modern person would know a transvestite is strictly a male-only routine wanting to dress as women whilst, usually, maintaining male prowess... (Though many transvestites would like to be transgender.)
A transgender can be either male or female wanting to undergo an actual physical sex-change/morph to 'the other' side, altogether - or mostly.
Having said that, transvestites are getting a bit 'old hat' and sooooooo September 10th... therefor determining 'transvestism' may have to be updated due to shifting societal determinables.
I've got no comments on the article itself but I have some comments to add on the subject of feminism and family:
- The author needs to factor in the effects of mass migration in diluting the war to tear families apart. With these, I mean that migrants from non-western states flooding western states are coming and bringing traditional values. Remove pathologicals from the equation as they exist in every demographic and consider the 'normal' ones... for them they will probably value family and all that greater than what a radical feminist would consider 'healthy'.
- Also, I fear that part of this 'game' may be manipulation with regard to what constitute 'tradition'. Just because traditions are being broken down by a 'worse system' doesn't mean those traditions were right to begin with. I think a lot has to be said about 'bringing up children right' and not playing at guesswork which is the modus operandi and has been for a long time. You could have been brought up in a family with 2 parents, traditional setting etc but that doesn't mean that you would have been brought up right or that your parents knew what they were doing - rather than playing at guesswork. Most human problems come from broken individuals of which existed even before feminism ever reared it's head.
So to summarise.... 2 comments
1) What are the effects of non-western migrants not indoctrinated in feminism and leftism upon traditional values?
2) What is the case being put forward or driven with regards to making parents or 'would-be' parents competent at running/starting a family?
I hazard the guess that even if pathological liberal leftism and feminism is wiped off the face of the planet, humanity will still be in the same spot as now as the fundamental problems are not being addressed adequately.
Don't forget, when you strip off the technology of modern civilisation from the equation, society is still pretty much the same as it was pre-capitalism/mechanisation - despite all the 'new pathologies being added into the mix like postmodernism, feminism etc'. To me, it indicates the problems we face pre-date all this malarkey which are the equivalent of just another layer.
Looks like you got competition for longest comment-posts with LuckiRox, Lol.