gender equality

The Hissy Fit Generation and the Loss of Free Speech VII: The Subversion of Social Justice (2)

Courtesy of Susan Duclos of All News PipeLine| Click on image for larger version


“Since the 1990s, there’s been a change. The most scared thing at a university is the victim. Not in all departments and not in the sciences, but in the social sciences, especially in the humanities, the victim is the most sacred thing”

“The net effect [of safe spaces] is that the very people you are trying to help are rendered weaker and they become morally dependent.”

— Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist


In the last post we explored the landscape of social justice and the influence of the Social Justice Warrior (SJW) mindset expressed in particular through activism in universities and through rules and laws in education. We’ll be doing more of the same in this post with particular emphasis on racism and sexism in schools and universities.

In the Alice in Wonderland worldview of the SJW, racism, sexism and the accusation that anyone who is a straight, white and male and happens to disagree is immediately on the wrong side of the SJW contingent and opening themselves up to an array of derogatory labels. We become right wing provocateurs; “privileged” and misogynist; white supremacists and “——-phobic” (fill in the blank).  Critics must feel terminally guilty and contrite for being borne into a racial demographic that in the past presided over genocide and institutional racism, pre-civil rights era. Not withstanding the irony that comes from the inherent privilege of students and academics, there is no evidence it exists now on the scale touted by these terminally offended young minds.

True racism is someone who expresses distaste or hatred for someone, simply due to their race. This form of ignorance is still around, but hurling abuse at anyone who is conservative, white, not a member of a minority or whose sexual orientation happens to be heterosexual (how passé) is displaying the exact same sexism/racism in reverse. This is the same contradiction that claims intolerance by enforcing tolerance.

In fact, SJW ideology is predicated on the most hackneyed contradictions sourced from its postmodern philosophical roots and which are sometimes so obvious it’s almost comical. Almost.

When feelings are facts, sexism, mis-gendering – whatever suits the hysterical SJW’s purpose – then literally anything can be twisted into an excuse to virtue-signal for a standardized “equality” > conformity. Unfortunately, this unhealthy mix of unthinking ideology and emotional histrionics (which is even more apparent with young women who appear to make up the majority of the SJW camp) results in a deepening of inequality, and empowering only the vampiric nature of victimhood identity. It creates new tears in the fabric of an already traumatised and infantilised society by accentuating social divisions and intense resentment.

This radicalism has not only emerged through left-liberal progressivism but thrives on the emotional drama of “us and them” and the subsequent promotion of violence and vindictiveness. Despite the default enemy of the alt. and ultra right, even moderate liberals and conservatives (in fact anyone who doesn’t agree) become the demonised “other” simply because they represent an alternative view. One only has to look at Facebook rants and Twitter storms to how this righteous indignation can go viral in a very short space of time.

For all those young activists who are actually prepared to make the effort to read, research, contemplate and to observe themselves in relation to the world, this hijacking of peaceful civil disobedience is a most dangerous dynamic to be unleashed. It is dangerous because it is sourced not from the love of Truth but the love of conflict as a salve to a troubled self. This phenomenon neuters the creative power of conscience in the young; their hope, their ideals and their potential to provide solutions and by subverting it into nothing more than a tool for the maladjusted it therefore proves useful as another tool for the Establishment. When protest feeds on fear and toxic emotions it can be maneuvered to where it can be of best use, in much the same way coloured revolutions can be fomented for regime change in any given country.

(Expect the SJW to be triggered by the term “coloured” revolutions. This is not a joke – that’s the level this craziness has reached).

Thanks to SJWs and their enablers, the United States and parts of Europe must now cope with a culture war designed to irrevocably confuse millennials about their sexuality, ethics, morals and values, which results in greater ethnic and political divides and turns us away from Establishment culpability. Most importantly, it ensures that young minds identify with extremes of mob rule or suffer from being sandwiched between two poles of  pathological hypocrisy.

(more…)

Advertisements

The Hissy Fit Generation and the Loss of Free Speech VII: The Subversion of Social Justice (1)

By M.K. Styllinski

How can Free Speech be conditional? (Photo: Michael Barera Wikimedia Commons)

“The intellectual battlefields today are on college campuses, where students’ deep convictions about race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation and their social justice antipathy toward capitalism, imperialism, racism, white privilege, misogyny and “cissexist heteropatriarchy” have bumped up against the reality of contradictory facts and opposing views, leading to campus chaos and even violence.”

— Michael Shermer


We have explored the toxic effects of postmodernism; the change in culture and left-liberal politics toward infantilism; the influence of cultural narcissism and the role of social media in shaping the younger generations. Now, we’ll have a look at how all these various factors are producing a singular form of millennial activism in our universities and colleges.

Social Justice, it seems, has gone the same way of so many traditional beliefs and traditions in society in that it doesn’t necessarily refer to upholding justice at all. Rather, it has become another way to virtue-signal and reinforce a tribal grouping above and beyond reason and facts. After observing this phenomena over the past several years it is still stunning to behold this level of cognitive degeneracy when faced with the vocal and often violent forms of this new activism – the Social Justice Warrior or SJW.

A term which began as a positive description of young activists was later used as a pejorative term by their detractors. It describes those who prefer emotion and group-think over reason and truth, whilst claiming the latter. They are the natural – often well-intentioned – product of all that’s been discussed hitherto. This umbrella term is equated with left-liberal issues which typically include (what used to be) socially progressive views such as 3rd wave feminism, multiculturalism, gender equality, identity politics, sexism, racism etc. Unfortunately, all of these issues are riven with assumptions, myths and opinion which have been propagated as fact by the MSM.

SJWs gained notoriety in the wake of the Trump election for their inability to accept the result and engaging in monumental hissy fits as objective reality came crashing down. The fact that this was, in all probability one of the rare occasions that democracy actually functioned made no difference at all; it didn’t match their reality so a collective tantrum ensued and the pathology of the SJW was seared into public consciousness. The Trump election acted as one collective macroaggression that triggered all those fully invested in a social justice that was based on a misreading of reality. It didn’t matter that Hillary Clinton is a criminal and sociopath, Trump was the personification of everything that the left loathed – the facts be damned.  Therefore, nuance and Deep State realities were irrelevant, if knowledge of these issues even featured at all. As one mainstream media presenter commented after the result: “Everybody is crying and so upset – it is the end of their world.”

Boo-hoo.

Or as another feminist pundit put it: “Get your abortions now, because we going to be fucked and we are going to have to live with it.”

Charming.

We then have the radical left and “anarchist” group Antifa who sit alongside SJWs and have about as much to do with true anarchism as reality TV has to do with talent. Both are utterly bereft of any semblance of creativity and thrive on sensation. This group therefore represents the subversion of true activism and civil disobedience which, until the coming of age of millennials, was still relatively focused, even as recent as 2010. No longer. The dark side of the left has been fully unleashed and has remained on show ever since. Now that the Dark Triad appears to have successfully taken over, it’s no wonder that so many are re-evaluating what “progressive” and “left” really means today.

(more…)

The Hissy Fit Generation and The Loss Of Free Speech II: Microaggressions and Trigger Warnings (2)

The New Lexicon of “Offence” and Para-Morality

In the West, we are already suffering from information overload and a loss of quality communication. It seems people are more afraid of exchanging pleasantries with a stranger than ever before thanks to an overemphasis on negative news in the media as well as the addiction to our smart phones. If you simply want to say “hi” to an attractive man or woman; to chat with someone you don’t know over the deli counter, the gas station or in the street while waiting for a bus… there will increasingly be this niggling thought of saying the wrong thing and offending someone through a cultural programming that is changing our language as well as restricting it. We have a very real collective fear of saying the wrong thing that is causing a conformity to a flawed consensus that doesn’t exist, except in the minds of those who get paid to push this agenda. The Orwellian Offence Police are active in entertainment, universities, the work place and in government, with numerous examples of the most insane persecution imaginable.

The following phrases are in most left-liberal academic and social justice warrior’s lexicon wrapped up in the desire to virtue signal – that now overused phrase from the right –  used to dismiss the logic of free speech advocates and ordinary people in their daily lives.

Trigger Warnings According to the Oxford English Dictionary a trigger warning is: “A statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc. alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material (often used to introduce a description of such content)”. This is a very convenient way for the Establishment to make sure that its population self-censors. Trigger warnings were originally developed by psychologists for war veterans, victims of sexual abuse or common trauma as a means to flag content which might stimulate a re-run of painful memories. Unfortunately, this has now been extended to the university campuses and the arts & entertainment industry (which is perhaps less of an issue given the state of graphic sex and violence on TV) and is now used to provide protection from words and opinions this precious generation doesn’t like; any discomfort at all in fact, a far cry from the preventative measures designed for genuine victims of war, violence and/or sexual abuse.

This postmodern paranoia has infiltrated minorities and student life with a vengeance. Sex, race and politics are all foci for trigger warnings causing protests, demonstrations, self-important letters with lists of demands for faculty members and even their removal due to perceived bias, sexism, racism or the violation of their hallowed safe spaces. [1]

Trigger warnings have been imposed in many university curricula due to students’ demands. The control of university policy – whether it is ethnic minority students feeling victimised or screaming young feminists demanding attention – any kind of encroachment of reality and therefore distress has led to warnings on such books as Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, Mrs Dalloway by Virginia Woolf, The Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald, and The Merchant of Venice. Yes, now Shakespeare is deemed threatening, a  trend that is also taking place in Britain, with Cambridge University picking up the PC gaunlet. [2]

To pander to this inner health and safety zone one student offered his university faculty tips on how to proceed: “For instance, one trigger warning for “The Great Gatsby” might be: (TW: “suicide,” “domestic abuse” and “graphic violence.”) […] Thanks to the vague tags within the warning, readers and unaffected students alike can approach a narrative without the plot being spoiled. Yet, at the same time, students who are unfamiliar with these works can immediately learn whether courses will discuss traumatic content. […] Professors can also dissect a narrative’s passage, warning their students which sections or volumes of a book possess triggering material and which are safer to read. This allows students to tackle passages that are not triggering but return to triggering passages when they are fully comfortable.” [3]

(more…)

The Hissy Fit Generation and the Loss of Free Speech II: Microaggressions and Trigger Warnings (1)

By M.K. Styllinski

“Never has never there been a modern age more saturated in irony and hypocrisy, where blind emotion shreds any semblance of measured reason.”


In the last post we explored the bedrock of postmodernist thinking which informs so much of the present left-liberal system of beliefs. The ridicule and disdain of so called conspiracy theorists – most of whom are merely highlighting the camouflaged nature of social and geopolitical realities – is a frequent hobby of the postmodernists who delude themselves and others into thinking that social constructivism and the very notion of free speech is …a delusion! Certainly, there is a case to made that much of our world is socially constructed and deterministic – especially when we factor in social engineering. However, broadly speaking, for postmodernists subjectivity is an end in itself, nullifying any attempts to arrive at an objective appraisal of reality, and thus the search for truth that potentially binds us together. It is a vacuum of endless open-ended relativity that shuns solutions in favour of an intellectual and epistemological void where anything goes because nothing really exists – its all in the mind as a materialist soup of interaction without practical meaning. Such people draw their emotional succor (masquerading as intellectualism) by focusing on a perceived institutionalised racism, sexism, and a social science that has over emphasised the ‘nurture’ interpretation of social dynamics. This has produced an unhealthy, wholly out-of-balance platform for change, elevating the rights of minority groups over the majority.

Being against Monsanto, the evils of capitalism and the general tenets of anti-globalisation is laudable on paper. However, what use is protest if one is high on the drama of division rather than solutions? Engaging directly with the beast merely feeds it. Peaceful protest is necessary but only as an adjunct to creating alternatives. It’s even worse if you are unknowingly in the pay of Establishment minions like fake philanthropist George Soros who funds various left leaning organisations and activist groups for an entirely different agenda. Hugely important issues raised from the spectre of of 9/11; state-sponsored terror; the weapons industry; child sex rings; human trafficking; the modern-day infiltration by CoIntelpro or even the obvious and continuing conspiratorial nature of the National Security State as a whole, are deemed strangely unworthy for much of the left and radical left, thus easily dismissed as conspiratorial nonsense.  (Noam Chomsky and the late Howard Zinn are prime examples of this conscious or unconscious gate-keeping).

We have witnessed how easily activists on the radical left have fallen for obvious psyops and limited hangouts which mobilised progressive and anarchist movements on behalf of the Deep State. Left academics lament Trump while ignoring overarching realities which encompass patterns of criminal corruption that traverse the right-left divide. Meanwhile, their erstwhile activist colleagues on the street demonstrate Trump and on occasions, turn out to be more violent than the local Neo-Nazis whom they frequently bait.

The wish for a just society and equality for all is the reason for this type of social activism, we are told. Yet, it can be as superficial as it is disingenuous, often based on nothing more than personal dissatisfaction with one’s lot and the sense of power and meaning that comes from being a member of a cause. It emboldens the ego and the individual’s idea that s/he is socially significant; that s/he has earned a self-righteous badge of honour in fighting for freedom and the emancipation of the oppressed. If you cannot or do not wish to see the core reasons for how easily crowd psychology can be used against you, that one is merely a pawn and fighting for nothing but one’s own fragile identity, such energy can be swiftly exploited for all its transient worth by those in power. Without the wisdom to accompany this adherence to “social justice” more false narratives and ineffective “solutions” will nibble at the edges of resolution.


“Censorship is to art as lynching is to justice.”

— Henry Louis Gates Jr.


Identity politics reflects the same unhealthy postmodernist programming and activism of choice. Whatever dark projections of unresolved trauma one wishes to externalise in order to exercise meaning and/or exorcise pain – group identity becomes the arbiter of reality rather than substance and facts.  Of course, like any addiction that just makes it worse for the individual and much worse for all of us who have to deal with the psychic pollution and material chaos it creates. We don’t have social activism on the real issues. Instead, we have the collective hissy fit best represented by the Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) who are neither warrior-like or just. We have the violent emergence of Antifa who label themselves as anarchist and anti-fascist yet in truth, they are about as far from true anarchism as it is possible to be, whilst employing distinctly fascist methods to impose their views.

(more…)

The Hissy Fit Generation and The Loss of Free Speech I: Postmodernism (2)

“Don’t you give me that postmodern bullshit. There is truth, There is a truth. And what you want, or you feel, or you need, isn’t going to change the truth. Any more than it’s going to topple a skyscraper. There’s truth, and there’s belief.  Don’t call a mule a stallion.”

— Carol Plum-Ucci, young adult novelist, essayist


You don’t need to give a shit about postmodernism and other tangential beliefs for them to work on you.

Before long, people are programmed to act in a certain way, use the correct language and associate with the right people because thinking this way becomes part of the socio-cultural constructs in which we live and have our being; it becomes a default auto-suggestion, a kind of neuro-linguistic leveller for interpersonal relationships acting at the subconscious level. Academia’s psychology of choice is transposed to cultural precepts and channelled swiftly across the global brain of info-tainment technology. People don’t even know they are following the herd because postmodernist thinking is designed to homogenise and consensualise; to enforce conformity through ostensibly benign principles. That’s how it seduces intellectuals who are happier living in their head than their heart, hence the seeding of these ideas in universities.

Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, Jordan Peterson is passionately against this brand of postmodernism and their adherents, having been on the receiving end of their witch-hunts for refusing to use the correct gender pronouns. (We’ll look at gender issues later on in the series). Peterson’s view on postmodernism is unequivocal and asserts the origins of this philosophy is rooted in cultural Marxism. From a recent interview given to The Epoch Times (see video below) he explains that by the 1960s even French intellectuals had to concede that state communism was a disaster and needed re-branding into a new ideological platform “under a post-modern guise;” identity politics would then swiftly take over the reins of popular socio-political movements for change.

It didn’t take long for this catch-all philosophy to spread through Anglo-American academia channelled through the traditions of workers’ emancipation and minority group rights. The unpopularity of Marxism meant that insights from the Frankfurt School of cultural Marxism were brought into play. Peterson states: “They started to play a sleight of hand, and instead of pitting the proletariat, the working class, against the bourgeois, they started to pit the oppressed against the oppressor. That opened up the avenue to identifying any number of groups as oppressed and oppressor and to continue the same narrative under a different name.” Postmodernist thinking s actually the same form of intellectual tyranny exemplified by state communism but re-invented through philosophical circus tricks ostensibly based on a collective social conscience. Unfortunately, it is anything but the latter. The professor explains:

“It was no longer specifically about economics,” he said. “It was about power. And everything to the postmodernists is about power. And that’s actually why they’re so dangerous, because if you’re engaged in a discussion with someone who believes in nothing but power, all they are motivated to do is to accrue all the power to them, because what else is there?” he said. “There’s no logic, there’s no investigation, there’s no negotiation, there’s no dialogue, there’s no discussion, there’s no meeting of minds and consensus. There’s power.”

“And so since the 1970s, under the guise of postmodernism, we’ve seen the rapid expansion of identity politics throughout the universities,” he said. “It’s come to dominate all of the humanities-which are dead as far as I can tell-and a huge proportion of the social sciences.”

“We’ve been publicly funding extremely radical, postmodern leftist thinkers who are hellbent on demolishing the fundamental substructure of Western civilization. And that’s no paranoid delusion. That’s their self-admitted goal,” he said, noting that their philosophy is heavily based in the ideas of French philosopher Jacques Derrida, “who, I think, most trenchantly formulated the anti-Western philosophy that is being pursued so assiduously by the radical left.”

“The people who hold this doctrine-this radical, postmodern, communitarian doctrine that makes racial identity or sexual identity or gender identity or some kind of group identity paramount-they’ve got control over most low-to-mid level bureaucratic structures, and many governments as well,” he said. “But even in the United States, where you know a lot of the governmental institutions have swung back to the Republican side, the postmodernist types have infiltrated bureaucratic organizations at the mid-to-upper level.” [1]

Peterson does not think its dangers nor “the degree to which it’s already infiltrated our culture can be overstated.”

(more…)

The Hissy Fit Generation and the Loss of Free Speech I: Postmodernism (1)

By M.K. Styllinski


Freedom of Speech

Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger”i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint. – Encyclopedia Britannica

***

Hissy Fit

uk /ˈhɪs.i ˌfɪt/ us /ˈhɪs.i ˌfɪt/ informal: a sudden period of uncontrolled and silly anger like a child. – Cambridge English Dictionary

 


What Happened?

No, the above sub-heading is not a reference to Hillary Clinton’s embarrassingly awful publishing deal in which she attempts to cast herself as saintly victim of (non-existent) Russian malfeasance.  This is about what happened to the principles of the left and its liberal brother; why we are seeing such psychological chaos rising up through left-liberal activism and the younger, socially-minded generations.

Take a look a some of these headlines from the past few years:

Institutional child abuse: First grader sent to principal’s office after ‘misgendering’ classmate

Denmark Offers Homes, Education To Jihadists In “Hug A Terrorist” Rehab Program

Stanford University course to study ‘abolishing  whiteness’  

Teacher suspended after ‘calling a trans boy a girl’

SJWs finally lose it: California college students claim no such thing as truth, ‘Truth’ is a tool of white supremacy

Berkeley snowflakes protest mid-term tests, demand ‘take-home’ exams instead 

Compelled speech comes to Canada: Citizens using the ‘wrong’ gender pronoun could be accused of hate crimes

Collapse of masculinity: Millennial men turning to plastic surgery to increase self esteem  

Hyper-activists target Confederate monuments across U.S. as Baltimore calls for them to be torn down

France may set age of consent at 13 after man acquitted of raping 11yo

Fired Google engineer Damore says the company is hiring and promoting workers based on race or gender 

Swedish Left Party Chapter Wants To Make Urinating While Standing Illegal For Men 

Black Lives Matter: Being born a white person automatically makes you a racist 

———————

Alarming no?

30 years ago when I was a young, very bewildered 18 year-old, I was firmly of the belief that environmentalism and a liberal sprinkling of old school Marxism was just the ticket for a more humane and just society. Times have radically changed. Or maybe I just grew up. If my 18 year-old self could have had a brief window into his 48 year old future self that now sides with conservative values over left-liberal activism, he would have shook his head at the horror of it all.

Admittedly, I often think I’ve of stumbled into an alternate reality.

The truth is, I don’t naturally resonate to conservatism, moderate or otherwise. If you had to rubber stamp my forehead with an “-ism” then it would have to be agorism with a dash of old, peace-loving anarchism in the truest sense of the word. Nevertheless, I count myself as a liberal on certain issues, more libertarian or conservative on others. Call it a pick ‘n’ mix position of the best that our philosophical and political traditions can offer. Shouldn’t that be the whole point in a sane and rational world? Most political ideologies – much like most religions – have at their inception nuggets of gold which can potentially enrich societies. Obviously, that approach is not what we have in the world;  only “My way or the highway” rules the day.

Equally, this is not about whether we are left or right-leaning in our worldview, nor is it about further entrenching the problem along partisan lines. This is concerned with upholding free speech for everyone so that reasoned discourse can be given the chance to prevail. Such a principle is unalterable for very precise reasons, as we will discover over the course of this series.

When I use the terms “moderate conservatism” and “left” or “left-liberal” I refer to the mindset rather than whatever political party is in power. The latter is irrelevant since the Conservative and Labour parties in the UK and the Democrat and Republican parties in the United States are still very much under the yoke of the (Deep) State’s social and economic dictates. It is this essential point that much of the left-liberal worldview is missing and gives nourishment to far right fringe groups by adopting an increasing and equally authoritarian line. This may sound very odd indeed if you consider yourself fighting the good liberal-left fight. But we will be explore how much of the left has been comprehensively ponerised i.e. infected by radical beliefs, in turn, turbo-charged by pathology and the implications for free speech.

I also want to make it absolutely clear that I am not throwing the baby out with the bath-water and suggesting that there is no racism or sexism etc., or that it should somehow be ignored. It does occur and it should be called out – if it is genuine. There has been great strides in addressing these issues; far greater progress has been made than one would think if listening to 3rd wave feminists, anti-racists and the like. Which is why the focus is about those who have a vested interest in perpetuating and inflaming these issues due to their own psychological predispositions about which they are unaware.

As the world becomes increasingly unstable (particularly in America) this mindset is growing and represents a dangerous threat to free speech and expression. It will mean whether we live in a democracy, however fragile that may be at present, or a form of soft totalitarianism that sometimes crudely or very subtly determines what you say or think. In other words: fascism. This is a shift which has developed through a form of neuro-hacking over decades, creating division and apparent tribalism, yet paradoxically encouraging conformity through a form of vertical collectivism. As I stated in World State Policies I:

So, what form has this “socialism” in the West actually taken? Simply put, collectivism is the opposite of individualism, where group thought, philosophy, action and principle overrides the needs of the individual. The term can be divided into horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism. The former is collective decision-making among largely equal individuals, and is therefore based on decentralisation, while the latter is drawn from hierarchical power structures and socio-cultural conformity, and is based on centralisation. While such a drive to group endeavour can bring out the positive aspects of our interdependence and our shared experiences across the planet, the kind of collectivism we will explore is an overreaching form that employs both vertical and distorted horizontal forms into one vast entity – its expression having been ponerised by emerging strains of psychopathy. The onset of ponerogenesis will manifest by whatever channels deemed suitable in order to achieve Pathocracy. Remember that none of these ideologies are evil in themselves, but used in a pathocratic context, they become tools of destruction.

It is manifesting in complex, perhaps irreversible ways, through the very traditions that ostensibly speak up for the oppressed and disenfranchised. Such a collective social conscience is in danger of being replaced by a something quite different. It is being seeded in the younger generations who are least able to process its effects, therefore becoming it’s primary foot-soldiers. Since they are our future, this should be a concern to us all.; if that is, we can step outside our political allegiances and look squarely at the nature of the beast.

(more…)

Rule of Law? IV: Gender Bending and the True Enemy

images

© infrakshun

Feminism – at least as we know it today – and its various complex sub-categories of benign and malign forces had its beginnings way back in the 19th century. The religious influences upon men and women had defined those roles for millennia; the assumed inferiority to man and her qualities of “temptress” alongside “feminine wisdom” was the backdrop to the burning of witches in the Middle Ages to the witch-hunts of the 17th century and the stultifying sexual repression of Victorian England.

In the United States, the roles of men and women were already defined before the Founding Fathers arrived and changed Native American lives forever. Long before the UK suffragettes began rebelling against these enforced roles, it was taken for granted that women existed as mothers and wives, a presumption that was both divinely ordained and thus a natural duty. The developing democracy rested on man as the giver or provider and women as the enabler or nurturer. Women were more or less property of the husband with the belief in the sacred mother-child bond and the woman’s natural instinct for child rearing. The physical prowess of the male (imagined or otherwise) determined that the “hunter-gatherer” would do just that.

The inability of the woman to provide for herself was also directly related to the male holding the reins of financial power which precluded any property rights or ability to earn for women. That being so, in early England and America up to the mid-1800s, fathers had sole rights to custody, because custody was closely tied to inheritance and property law.[1]  Several early feminist activists of the day, most notably English-born Caroline Norton fought to have these ruling turned in favour of women after being deprived of her own children in the aftermath of divorce. [2] That changed when the legal principle of the Tender Years Doctrine automatically gave rights to mothers based on what was seen as developmentally sensitive years of 13 and under.

Custody rights were shaped by these gender precepts: the love and emotional support of the mother and the more distant, intellectual, financial provision of the father. These gender roles were sacrosanct in society and in law. Upon the arrival of the Industrial Revolution, the nuclear family was in the process of disintegrating due in part, to fathers having to go further afield to locate work opportunities. The British Empire was the hub of this economic and capitalist revolution which would have serious repercussions for family and community.

Although initially new wealth was created for Western European peasantry due to outsourcing by emerging companies, this soon changed. The majority of middle and working class women worked from home. The American economy for example, relied a great deal on home businesses such as woodwork and textiles. With centralisation came disenfranchisement and disconnection from communities built on these crafts and skills intimately connected with an understanding of the land. Factories replaced a network of cottages industries largely dominated by women and their highly skilled handcrafts. The home traditionally carried by women was replaced with mass production. Women’s domestic duties rapidly disappeared so that rearing children for the majority became their only destiny. Single mothers and young women often had to move into boarding houses close to factories with the consequent lack of sanitation and poorly paid wages that accompanied such a move.

In summary, the gender roles became increasingly defined by economic constraints where the male breadwinners were the benefactors of monetary power. This meant that fathers’ capacity to nurture their children from the masculine polarity was further reduced at the same time the mothers’ foundation for community and cottage industry income was removed.

When set against custody decisions the differences became stark. Since women’s only validation for their existence was now from the maternal role it was seen as horribly cruel to deny the mother what was after all seen as a biological and thus a fundamental right due to this new social prison. The father however, was forced to provide economically for his children without ever having rights to see them. Emotional bonds of mother and child were reinforced while the father’s presence became a purely financial consideration.

Through no fault of his own and from the causes of macro-social forces rather than intrinsic gender pre-dispositions, fathers’ rights in custody battles became increasingly fractured due to the obvious fact that women were indeed spending much more time with their children and thus having the advantage when questioned by the judge regarding “quality time”. By the late 20th century very few fathers now retained children in custody trials. [3]

The idea that the mothers had an unassailable right to child custody was now firmly entrenched in the legal system. But what made this doubly unfair that with the onset of the World War and its closure, women had rightly become wage earners in their own right therefore taking on the male role as provider and nurturer. [4]  Prevailing views cemented these stereotypes by presuming that unless women were financially destitute and compelled to work it was unnatural and morally wrong, whereas if the man’s career ambitions evolved to the total exclusion of the family unit, functioning as a hotel to be fed and watered, this was somehow understandable and correct, despite the fact that many men so desperately wanted a relationship with the children. At this stage, socio-cultural dictates in general were making it difficult for men to be emotionally in touch with their feelings at all, let alone to express a natural desire that true shared parenting was perhaps healthy and vitally important.

By the 1950s the legal maxim in custody battles was “the best interests of the child” which in practice seldom worked out that way. This did not alter the mythology of women as automatically the best bet for custody regardless of the evidence or circumstances. For decades an almost subconscious aversion to awarding rights to the father developed in the minds of many judges as a matter of principle. Furthermore, large economic shifts in the 1960s, ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s and throughout the chaos of the 2000’s have clearly placed men in general at a disadvantage regarding accessibility rights during and after divorce proceedings.

Large scale fragmentation of the family unit has unequivocally taken place due to the many factors already discussed in this series so far, most obviously due to globalisation as a euphemism of international corporatism and its doctrine of ever greater centralised consumption devoid of social and ecological values. As a consequence, the resulting economic disparity between men and women – while taking account of the many exceptions to the rule – has placed the onus on men to uphold an impossible and singular financial standard usually on a single income and in a highly volatile and shifting global economic market place. Technology and automation is overseeing the demise of traditional work connected to the land. The 9-5 working day with the feminist agenda for gender equality will offer needed rights to mothers but also exacerbate another problem.

A painful and recurring irony has arrived that indicates the divide and rule scenario in operation so favoured of think tanks, the Empire’s intellectual vanguard of change. The dichotomy of men and women’s rights is increasingly reversed in the affluent Western world. Where financial solvency was praised as vital for the support of the family it is now seen as an impediment to proper family cohesion and parenting. Another bizarre twist has taken place. While many women have played the game of “success” under the push for illusory equal rights and juggled the family life with a corporate career; headed companies and donned the mask of the capitalist entrepreneur or boss,  in many cases women are repeating the exact same reasons that men lost their custody battles: by being distant from the family and not participating in “quality parenting.” Now that women have got what men had in the corporate world they too are being penalised for precisely the same reasons. [5]

While some men stay at home and care for the children the gender stereotypes remain. Men are not “house-husbands” they are shirking their manly responsibilities or just “unemployed”. Yet women who work still retain both roles and then complain when it becomes too demanding. The net result is a constant dichotomy that flips between genders creating and perpetuating multiple levels of tension.

In custody cases successful career women have to justify their work role by not assuming the traditional role of mother love. Whereas men the “hunter-gatherers” are forced to justify why they cannot support their family financially and are thereby somehow deficient of masculine genes. This is not a gender issue and never has been. What this represents – as in so many of the issues we have addressed so far – is an issue of reductive economics and the international financial architecture that has been built on exploitation of such depth and profundity that it is little wonder that it has ultimately defined who we are. Behind this wholly exploitative framework is the psychopathic mind that delights in such obfuscation and confusion. These anti-human ways of being allow it to be hidden from scrutiny. It is a shocking indictment of our society that the key benefactor of this descent will continue to be the wealthy Elite.

It is obvious that such a state of affairs does not just happen but results from an integration of Christian ethics with the organisation of Roman legal systems which were progressively adapted into our Western institutions. The human cruelties, indifferences and inconsistencies were also incorporated and laid the groundwork from one Pathocratic Empire to another. Łobaczewski talked about this “Western civilization” and how its degeneration was due to a “serious deficiency” in recognising the signs of decay which inevitably led to evil consequences. This was  due to the simplistic appraisal of human psychology upon which the societal structures of law, justice and philosophy were based. The insufficient resistance to evil was easily taken advantage of due to the “enormous gap between formal or legal thought and psychological reality.” [6] And so it is. We are still sourcing our knowledge and understanding from a juvenile dictionary and total lack of comprehension which has locked in economics, law, justice and just about every other domain in society. Is it any wonder that we are experiencing serious cognitive dissonance concerning the nature and direction our societies are taking?

It is the knowledge that we have an inherited the workings of societies “insufficiently resistant to evil” that can inform our future thoughts and actions on this issue. It will require that we become cognizant of how ponerogenesis plays out in our own lives and how we can best avoid its traps. Learning to see how we can understand this process will mean whether or not we become the scapegoats of this degeneration or the pioneers of its eventual dissolution.

Is gender equality a possibility? It depends on society’s current enforced assumptions about our roles. Equal opportunities cannot be approached when the very fundamentals of our socio-economic systems are skewed. Equal opportunities to be treated civilly and with respect cover both genders. Unfortunately, much as feminists would rail at the statement: men and women ARE fundamentally different – physiologically, neurologically and how we process reality – as a thousand studies have underscored time and again. So, while our conception of gender roles have indeed been enforced and expected, there are natural even timeless differences of masculine and feminine which only truly work when they meet in the middle to create that third force. It is the integration of the dualities while retaining differences which alter reality for the better rather than seeking to displace, out-do or gain ascendency over the other, or even worse to claim “rights” as though women in the Western world are somehow separate from the inculcated pathology of which we are ALL apart.

The inherent assumptions of those in positions of power which mean that women are seen as objects and where they are not deemed worthy of attaining the CEO position does happen. Similarly, men can be ridiculed for being stay-at-home dads or a job as a nurse. The problem is, within these positions are also wider implications denoting much more than mere ignorance or bigotry. It may be that the kind of roles that moderate feminists wish to see cannot be observed in the type of social reality we have right now, for the reasons so far given in this series.

Does that mean we don’t press for change? Or course not, but until we see that such urging of women’s rights without due awareness of ponerology which has our Western societies comprehensively in its palm means that much of the core reasons for seeking gender equality will be as authentic as Live Aid.  This is a problem not of female rights against male rights. It is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue against the PSYCHOPATH. All else derives from this. One talks of gender equality immediately assuming that men are not expressing the exact same victimhood. And this where so often white, middle-class, Western female entitlement arrives in much the same way as Jewish ethnocentrism and the reflex assumption from African-Americans that slavery by white traders of the past still demand recompense.

Until we embrace the fact that we are ALL victims of a centuries old evil that resides both in concrete reality and the metaphysics of myths and imagination within our own hearts we will never be free. We must take a grand, bird’s eye view of humanity which has in the modern era all the tools necessary to forge a new awareness of the multitude of horrors we have collectively suffered over lifetimes. That means truly joining together against a common foe and defending ourselves against it. Not by wasting energy on gender issues and spectres of the past. The only thing that will change these issues is SEEING who is stirring the pot of constant division and conflict. That does not mean doing nothing but it does imply that we choose our battle very, VERY wisely.


Notes
[1] Women and the Law of Property in Early America by Marylynn Salmon, Published by UNC Press Books, 1989 | ISBN 0807842443, 9780807842447.
[2] Family Life in the Nineteenth Century, 1789–1913: The History of the European family. Volume 2. By David I. Kertzer, Yale University Press, 2002.
[3] Wrightsman’s Psychology and the Legal System  By Edith Greene, Kirk Heilbrun, Cengage Learning, 2010. 049581301X, 9780495813019.
[4] ‘The Mother-Love Myth: The Effect of the Provider-Nurturer Dichotomy in Custody Cases’ by Kalie Caetano The Macalester Review: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 2.
[5] More Fathers Are Getting Custody in Divorce’By Lisa Belkin, New York Times, November 17, 2009.
[6] op. cit. Lobaczewski; (p. 48)

Feminism or Infiltration? III: Libido of the Ugly

1973951Feminism, if not infiltrated has without doubt become infected by the same strains of pathology as any other ideology or belief that has the seeds of truth within it and thus a threat to the Pathocracy. Nowhere is this more evident than in its response to the many dissenters of the new feminism that was riding the wave of acceptance in the early seventies.

One antidote which provided plenty of vitriolic critique came from Argentine-German Esther Vilar whose book: The Manipulated Man made plenty of fresh-faced feminists even more apoplectic with rage and shock. Rather than white, middle-class women being the object of oppression and exploitation Vilar claims that the reverse is true – it is women who employ a sophisticated mixture of emotional manipulation, blackmail and psycho-strategy to gain the upper hand in a relationship of which most men are not aware. Some of the strategies she believes women use include luring men with sex and specific seduction strategies; using praise to control men administered at optimal moments for maximum effect and the use of love and romance to mask real intentions.

Though it might seem obvious now, it was heretical stuff and mightily controversial at the time. As regards men in contemporary society, Vilar listed some of the disadvantages she saw for men compared to women:

  • Men are conscripted; women are not.
  • Men are sent to fight in wars; women are not.
  • Men retire later than women (even though, due to their lower life-expectancy, they should have the right to retire earlier).
  • Men have almost no influence over their reproduction (for males, there is neither a pill nor abortion — they can only get the children women want them to have).
  • Men support women; women never, or only temporarily, support men.
  • Men work all their lives; women work only temporarily or not at all.
  • Even though men work all their lives, and women work only temporarily or not at all, on average, men are poorer than women.
  • Men only “borrow” their children; women can keep them (as men work all their lives and women do not, men are automatically robbed of their children in cases of separation — with the reasoning that they have to work). [1]

Vilar’s book certainly caused a veritable storm of indignant protest in its day, mostly from feminists. Admittedly, even by today’s standards decrying all women as essentially “bitches” and “stupid” is as extreme as generalising that all men are chauvinist thugs. This serves only to polarise gender issues rather than offer progressive understanding. It is an extreme book by anyone’s standards, not least the reaction it caused including death threats and the most abject vitriol that understandably took Vilar by surprise. However, not only did the book provide a counterpoint to the unassailable feminist movement as a whole, it also acted as a mirror for narcissistic feminists and their unfortunate trajectory.  It certainly got people talking and allowing more moderate versions of Vilar’s critique to emerge.

Regardless of the psychological reasons for writing such a work, in her 1998 preface to the new edition she stated:

As absurd as it may sound, today’s men need feminism much more than their wives do. Feminists are the last ones who still describe men the way they like to see themselves: as egocentric, power-obsessed, ruthless and without inhibitions when it comes to satisfying their instincts. Therefore the most aggressive Women’s Libbers find themselves in the strange predicament of doing more to maintain the status quo than anyone else. Without arrogant accusations, the macho man would no longer exist, except perhaps in the movies. If the press stylise men as rapacious wolves, the actual sacrificial lambs of this ‘men’s society’, men themselves, would no longer flock to the factories so obediently.

So I hadn’t imagined broadly enough the isolation I would find myself in after writing this book. Nor had I envisaged the consequences which it would have for subsequent writing and even for my private life — violent threats have not ceased to this date. A woman who defended the arch-enemy — who didn’t equate domestic life with solitary confinement and who described the company of young children as a pleasure, not a burden — necessarily had to become a ‘misogynist’, even a ‘reactionary’ and ‘fascist’ in the eyes of the public.[2] [Emphasis mine]

Though conveniently brushing aside her tendency to reduce issues down to simplistic, hackneyed white-washing she nevertheless raises important points in the above. Is a woman allowed to be all the things that feminism seems to squash? Or have we indeed arrived at a strange point where much of feminism in the modern Western world is unyielding to the point that it has indeed become another belief without the ability to evolve? It certainly seems that way.

Though economic shifts have played an enormous part in twisting the gender roles, of far more importance is the effects of an anti-human world on our core selves. In post-modern societies of cynical materialism and fake spirituality everything is filtered through this narcissistic façade where the perfection of the body is sought for and according to the whims of advertising, fashion and the stale clichés of male and female stereotypes. The effects of this on women are processed differently.

Studies show that emotional intelligence or a social cognition is higher in women with logical/mathematical intelligence and IQ tests persistently higher for men. [3] Does that mean women are more stupid? Absolutely not. Knee-jerk reactions from academics and media commentators feed into preconceived definitions of what it means to be male and female, each grinding their respective axes on the wet-stones of their own visions of emancipation.

In the same way, recent studies have confirmed the obvious assertions (obvious accept to the financiers of this research) that when either sex shows more flesh they are considered less intelligent. Once again, for both sexes it is the body and the mind as separate entities just like the functioning of male and female that promotes erroneous conclusions:

The new research suggests we see others as having two aspects of the mind – called agency and experience. Agency is the capacity to act, plan and exert self-control, while experience is the capacity to feel pain, pleasure and emotions. Interestingly, the amount of skin shown can determine if we see another as one of ‘experience’ or ‘agency’. During the study, men and women who focused on the body regarded that person as ‘experience’ with little capacity to plan and act. Professor Gray suggested this was because people automatically think of minds and bodies as separate things, even opposites. The capacity to act is more often tied to the ‘mind’ while experience is linked to the body.”[4]

Could it have anything to do with the strictly rationalist and reductionist brand of science still holding sway in the halls of academia? [5]

The above findings says much about our conditioned learning that sees mind and body as separate rather than a holistic system. This also explains why both sexes are trapped in their respective mirrors.  If showing more skin immediately equates women with the “experiencer” label and man with “agency” this not only confirms how disconnected we have become from our natural bodily state but a culture that glorifies commodity and quantity over quality and substance. It is little wonder that women will be placed in the “bimbo” with “little capacity to plan and act” while feeling “pain pleasure and emotions,” and thus “sexually available”. Conversely, men will automatically confirm the sporty, alpha male as well as being sexually available rather than the sensitive, “touchy-feely” type.

With the onset of largely iconic gay influences which have helped to encourage the uniform brand of gym-bodies in the last several years, this describes the upward curve of narcissism and vanity rather than health and fitness based on useful service to others. More gender clichés are served up for consumption from a technophilic society keen to keep it that way.

If women are suffering inside from a battery of historical and feminist led modern influences then men’s role as an emotionless robot with pectorals bigger than his porn-rag fantasy and the excess feminisation that produces the little boy syndrome unable to do anything but watch TV and play video games is directly related. But both sexes have been responsible for its continued fixation as they try on new ways of viewing their relative positions without awareness of natural predispositions.

For instance, women’s beauty is both a complex mix of power and pariah. Naomi Wolf illustrates on the one hand, the relentless push to find love and appreciation from readily available masks which women have donned as much for competition with other females as the goal of material acquisition which drives some men’s ambition. She explains:

Whatever is deeply, essentially female — the life in a woman’s expression, the feel of her flesh, the shape of her breasts, the transformations after childbirth of her skin–is being reclassified as ugly, and ugliness as disease. […]  At least a third of a woman’s life is marked with aging; about a third of her body is made of fat. Both symbols are being transformed into operable condition–so that women will only feel healthy if we are two thirds of the women we could be. How can an ‘ideal’ be about women if it is defined as how much of a female sexual characteristic does not exist on the woman’s body, and how much of a female life does not show on her face?” [6]

When men respond to the facade it often acts as a mirror of his narrowing values and lack of authenticity. Or in the words of H.L. Mencken, he has been directed to worship “the libido for the ugly” and take this as reality. Wolf comments: “What becomes of a man who acquires a beautiful woman, with her “beauty” his sole target? He sabotages himself. He has gained no friend, no ally, no mutual trust: She knows quite well why she has been chosen. He has succeeded in buying something: the esteem of other men who find such an acquisition impressive.”

Despite Wolf’s assertions in her writings that this is all about men oppressing women the truth is somewhat more complex which should become evident as we continue. And let’s not pretend that women do not do exactly the same by setting the “trap” for such mutually satisfactory contracts while claiming innocence. Nonetheless, it is little wonder that women are still seen as sexual objects when relationships at both ends of the spectrum are determined by sex as “fast food” trail-blazed by the mainstreaming of pornography and online dating.

Again, do women really want to be “equal” when that equality is dysfunctional at the outset?

Wolf reverses the male objectification:

Women could probably be trained quite easily to see men first as sexual things. If girls never experienced sexual violence; if a girl’s only window on male sexuality were a stream of easily available, well-lit, cheap images of boys slightly older than herself, in their late teens, smiling encouragingly and revealing cuddly erect penises the color of roses or mocha, she might well look at, masturbate to, and, as an adult, “need” beauty pornography based on the bodies of men. And if those initiating penises were represented to the girl as pneumatically erectible, swerving neither left nor right, tasting of cinnamon or forest berries, innocent of random hairs, and ever ready; if they were presented alongside their measurements, length, and circumference to the quarter inch; if they seemed to be available to her with no troublesome personality attached; if her sweet pleasure seemed to be the only reason for them to exist–then a real young man would probably approach the young woman’s bed with, to say the least, a failing heart.” [7]

And such a “training” for the young woman has already been taking place for many years. “Failing hearts” are occurring in both men and women though expressed differently.  Sure, the above sexual objectification occurs on a daily basis. But  let’s not forget the same toxic effects from the narcissistic arsenal of damaged women who objectify men through manipulation and dangerous emotional games which have nothing to do with appearance but everything to do with a deeper imperative, whether it be the biological urge for birthing or the need to have emotional control., the effects of which can be highly toxic in both marriage and partnership. But because the “fairer sex” are historically “oppressed” then it cannot be possible that covert forms of female induced oppression against the male exist…

What remains true is that our identity – whether we are gay, lesbian, straight, bi or transgender – is under attack from social engineering where movements become progressively hollowed out by pathological individuals who corrupt the purity of intent and replace it with a counterfeit version – a form of psycho-subversion, if you will.  It is truly a “group-think” which derives its energy from an Orwellian “double think” where paramoralisms and paralogic reign supreme.  (You’ll see why if you keep up to date with future series).

Feminism isn’t the only one.

MAN-AND-WOMAN_2-1024x656

TAMARA KVESITADZE: opening ceremony of statue |‘Man and Woman’ on October 30th, 2010 in Batumi, Georgia (Effigies)


Women in the West have finally clawed back many of their rights to find that they are ironically mirroring the male who was already a victim of an economic and social contract drawn up by those who cannot be considered in anyway “normal”.  When you fight for the right not to be objectified, to have a place in politics or to be treated as an intellectual equal – this is right and proper. But such a wish has gone much further so that the same quality of injustices are visited upon the male the recognition of which is largely swept away by a form of narcissism masked by largely white, Western feminism.  Whether in the family courts or the toxic effects of feminist belief within relationships, this is not going anywhere good for either sex.

We are spiritually and psychologically compromised in ways we are only just beginning to fathom. And feminists are in danger of fighting for the right to be exploited at a higher rung of the ladder that actually leads nowhere.

Whatever has been “deeply, essentially female” and male is in danger of being comprehensively discarded by the feminism of the 21st century.  A new way to perceive ourselves and the material world is desperately needed.  It is not the lack of material power, freedom in the work place or the red herring of gender equality but the toxic effects of a body-centrism that claims both male and female – the objectifying of the female form and women’s embrace of such a caricature and the disempowerment of both gender roles. This may be one reason that women’s narcissism is through the roof whilst the recognition of the female paedophile, child abuser, pathological narcissist and psychopath are only just managing to break through the cultural bias so that deep research can take place.

A recent report distinct for its large demographic analysis confirmed the emergence of women “reclaiming their power”  both in the market place and in relationships. The objective of the project was to: “… find out how close, intimate relationships vary over a lifetime.” The results of the study which were published by Professor Robin Dunbar of Oxford University, UK in the Journal of Scientific Reports came from the analysis of the texts of mobile phone calls of three million people incorporating the age and sex of callers providing a very “big picture” of people’s lives.  It gave overwhelming evidence that “romantic relationships are driven by women” based on “pair-bonding” proving that this is much more important to women than men. From the data as a whole, researchers determine that: “…a woman’s social world is intensely focussed on one individual and will shift as a result of reproductive interests from being the mate to children and grandchildren.” [8] 

The project also wanted to “…find out how the gender preference of best friends, as defined by the frequency of the calling, changed over the course of a lifetime and differed between men and women.” Professor Dunbar’s team reported that: “… women start to switch the preference of their best friend from about the mid-30s, and by the age of 45 a woman of a generation younger becomes the ‘new best friend.’ Men tended to choose a woman (a girlfriend or wife) as a best friend much later in life and for a shorter time.

“Women, however, choose a man of a similar age to be their best friend from the age of 20. He remains for about 15 years, after which time he’s replaced by a daughter.” At the beginning of a relationship women call their spouse more than any other person, but as their daughters become old enough to have children, the focus is transferred and they become the centre of the woman’s life.  In the words of Professor Dunbar: “…at root the important relationships are those between women and not those between men.” [9]

Let’s re-visit Esther Vilar’s somewhat wild musings on this issue back in 1971:

… only women exist in a woman’s world. The women she meets at church, at parent-teacher meetings, or in the supermarket; the women with whom she chats over the garden fence; the women at parties or window-shopping in the more fashionable streets; those she apparently never seems to notice – these women are the measure of her success or failure. Women’s standards correspond to those in other women’s heads, not to those in the heads of men; it is their judgment that really counts, not that of men. A simple word of praise from another woman – and all those clumsy, inadequate male compliments fall by the wayside, for they are just praises out of the mouths of amateurs. Men really have no idea in what kind of world women live in; their hymns of praise miss all the vital points. [10]

This extract at least, is not quite as extreme when there is some statistical and socio-biological data to back it up.  Professor Dunbar believes this proves that we are returning to a more matriarchal based society. However, if under psychopathological dominance it is unlikely to resemble the kind of “equality” that human society yearns for.

With this in mind, could the real shift that ripped the sexual and emotional inheritance from our daily lives have buried a truth that there was something sacred and mutually empowering in the sexual act and by extension, the relationships between men and women – and other sexual orientations?

Eisler and many others believe so:

The search for this lost wisdom by mystics – and by women and men throughout the ages – is the search for reconnection with our partnership roots. It is the search for a way of relating that is the antithesis of the dominator mode, where in both reality and myth polarization and strife, conflict and separation, winning and losing, dominating and subduing, dismembering and disembodying, conquering and controlling, in short, force, fear, and violent disconnection, are the central themes. And its very essence, as mystical writings have so often brought out, is the search for a means of healing what was so brutally rent asunder with the shift to a dominator world: the fundamental erotic, and with this also spiritual, connection between women and men. [11]

Perhaps the only thing that will change the fortunes of both sexes is the recognition that male and female understanding lies beyond the terminal dance within the society’s economic, corporate and political framework. The success of one gender over another in order to retain the same consequences of mass pathology perpetrated by high level psychopaths and stepped down to endemic narcissism, must be seen for what it is if we are to free ourselves from a perception that men and women are constantly equated with inferiority or superiority – my rights as opposed to your rights. Perhaps we need to obtain a big picture view of the forces that shape us, otherwise, all the wonderful creative ideas that lie within so many great minds will prove to be still-born, yet again. That necessarily means an equally radical shift in perception that saw the division between the sexes all those years ago, so that a bridge may once again be formed.

The devaluation of women is a disaster for men. The devaluation of men is a disaster for women. Our misplaced anger and its projection into the external world are too easily channelled into causes and beliefs that temporarily mollify but ultimately benefit no one. The psychological knowledge of the psychopathic trickster that exists to create division between the two must form part of our collective education for young and old. Until we begin to see the culprit is the institutional and ceremonial psychopath – the embodiment of natural evil – that loves to create ideologies to divide and rule, then the true roles of men and women – heterosexual and homosexual – will continue to be obscured and pathologised.

In the next post we’ll have a look at some of the causes and effects of our present confusions in order to observe what we may call the “Sex Establishment” and how it not only benefits from such gender divisions, but has grown to distort and subvert the very concept of sex and sexuality.

 


Notes

[1] The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar Published by Abelard-Schuman 1972 | ISBN-10: 0200718754
[2] Ibid.
[3] ‘Men cleverer than women’ claim BBC News, August 25, 2005.
[4] ‘Cover up to look smart: Men and women who bare more flesh are regarded as less intelligent, study finds’ By Lauren Paxman, The Daily Mail, Femail, 11 November, 2011.
[5] For more on this do read The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake.
[6] p.232; The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women by Naomi Wolf. Published by Harper Perennial, 1992 Reprint: 2002 | ISBN-10: 0060512180.
[7] Ibid (p.154)
[8] ‘Phone data shows romance ‘driven by women’ BBC News, April 2012.
[9] Ibid.
[10] op. cit. Vilar.
[11]
Eisler, Riane; Sacred Pleasure: Sex, Myth, and the Politics of the Body, Published by Harper Collins, 2012.


Note: (February 2018) This 3 part essay on Feminism was written in original form more than ten years ago. Since then, Third Wave Feminism has metastasized into something much worse. Postmodernism and its neo-Marxist roots; gender and women studies; Social Justice Warriors; left authoritarianism and the blindness of many liberals have fused together turning a growing number of universities and even schools into indoctrination centres. Victimhood is the new ideology, a product of cultural stagnation and social engineering which is now threatening free speech and what is left of democracy in the West. It seems ponerological infiltration is occurring through the extreme left more rapidly than the far right. For more on this subject and its root causes and effects see the series: The Hissy Fit Generation And The Loss of Free Speech.

Feminism or Infiltration? I

By M.K. Styllinski

“…after an injury, narcissists may self-medicate with drugs or alcohol or make a mad dash to find alternative sources of attention and admiration. But mostly, they become enraged that others don’t go along with their entitled demands. They strike out like a despot whose subjects threaten a revolution. They may be up-front with their rage or be more passive aggressive about it. In divorce, narcissists may fight to get things they may not even want just so their ex-partner can’t have it. This includes custody of the children.”

– Randi Kreger, quoted in Psychology Today


On a feminist blog called Feminspire we are treated to an image of a leather/PVC-clad woman brandishing a whip in true S & M style with “Misandrist Sex Tips” as a title for its latest post. It’s meant to be satire and presumably puts the male firmly in his place to get an idea what it must feel like for women. If you read the list it is neither funny or clever but merely adding to the noise and misandry it claims to be lampooning. Sadly, within feminism as a whole, it has become something quite apart from the original “women’s rights” it was meant to espouse.

From the standpoint of Official Culture and the psychopath, traditional feminine and masculine roles are polarities to play with, so it comes as no surprise that real creative freedom for the sexes has been comprehensively ponerised. The way that psychopathy has done this is to create “movements” that finally end up resembling everything other than the original idea which was offered as a sensible template. In the modern, urban world men and women are being expertly played off against each other based on a fabricated myth of a “battle of the sexes.”

Like so many labels and “-ism’s,” the Women’s Liberation Movement or “feminism” has many groupings under its auspices, meaning a variety of things for a variety of people. Understanding sex and gender issues, women’s rights in education, the workplace and politics are just some of the topics explored with a myriad of organisations and charities based around women’s emancipation. Feminist activism focuses on voting, contract law, property, equal pay for women, raising awareness of sexual exploitation (domestic violence, sexual abuse / harassment and assault) reproductive rights, gender neutrality in English, access to contraceptives; the right to an abortion and campaigns against forms of discrimination. The battle for basic equality in terms of human and civil rights in the developing world is much needed as religious fanaticism in the guise of female genital mutilation in Africa, the Hindu caste system in India and the dogmas of fundamentalist Islam are only a few examples where women are still firmly under the yoke of patriarchy. Female infanticide, honor killings and cases of rape can all be funnelled into feminist discourse.

However…If we are able to grasp the implications of ponerology we’ll discover that Matriarchy and feminism isn’t the answer either.

In the West, what has become a way in for a progressive loss of validity for the feminist movement is the issue of gender equality – at any cost – which has been an open door for  misguided, narcissistic, misanthropic and even psychopathic elements, corrupting the movement as a whole. When we understand the principle of psychopathic inculcation that exists in our culture where both women and men have been placed under its programming, we will see that to focus on one sex at the expense of the other is to play into the game of divide and rule.

index

To say that periods of cyclic oppression and subjugation of women has not taken place by men for thousands of years and still continues, would be a denial of reality. What is labelled “Feminism” in countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Africa and Asia and across the developing world is actually about basic human rights and has become a force for real change against male-dominated, socio-religious discrimination and abuse. In the West, there have been great strides to rid ourselves of our Victorian patriarchal echoes and move onto a more equal footing. Yet, there are still some myths floating about that suggest there is more to cries of gender discrimination against women than meets the eye. One example: it is said that many women still receive a salary far below that of their male colleagues simply because of their gender. Is that true? Perhaps, but not for the reasons feminists would have us believe. According to Payscale Human Capital: “men do earn more than women on average, but not that much more when they work the same job and they have similar experience and abilities.” Furthermore, it appears to be much more a case of a natural gravitation toward a job sector that naturally pays less based on economic factors rather than a consistent discrimination.

However, like the gay rights movement, feminism and radical expressions within the movement from a Western, white, middle-class perspective have gone in a very different direction, the culmination of which has seen women less happy and with more incidences of narcissism and other mental illnesses than ever before. [1]  Some groups within feminism have been accused of misandry, a strange inversion of emancipation using the very same tools of the original male dominator. There are even reports that some groupings within feminism have resorted to racketeering where women’s “rights” have been distorted into a tried and tested formula of ad homein attacks on any and all those with an opposing view. As one commentator described it: “The MO of these feminist organizations is to threaten with lawsuits and threaten with embarrassment. They don’t care about women, they care about their own power.” [2] 

With any individuals concerned with power as the primary addiction, it doesn’t matter if its politics or women’s studies, this intellectual acid will dissolve the camouflage of post modern platitudes revealing the actions behind the mask. When feminism and political correctness for instance, meet in the  bastions of the law courts it can be a highly toxic mixture with male chauvinism and feminism clashing blindly. Depending on who the judge happens to be it is effectively a lottery of lies and manipulation. You rarely see the median since Hegelian divisions are designed that way and quickly absorbed as cultural norms.  (For an instructive narrative on how bad it can get, try reading Michael McConaughey’s The Mirror).

The promotion of women’s interests above men’s and the belief that men are inherently irredeemable concerning the treatment of said women merely creates more mountains of separation and confusion which everyone has to climb. It also plays directly into the hands of ultra-conservative, authoritarian personalities for whom a legion of repressive tenets closely linked to religious fundamentalist doctrines are deemed the only answer. Aside from radical feminist extremism, it has to be said that many false assumptions underpin the standard feminist drive from which this radicalism hails, most notably the notion of gender equality, a misnomer since it can never be achieved.  The way men and women process stress, intellectualise, manage negative emotions, and how we react to danger show that we are very different, physically and neurophysiologically. [4] Which means the notion of absolute equality is a nonsense since the above factors will determine to a large degree what will work and what is appropriate in society and what isn’t. Sometimes, you can’t buck biology but you can adapt and compromise provided we accept our gender strengths and weaknesses.

Though he may have underestimated how bad the situation is, the author, therapist and father of two daughters Michael Gurian offers something constructive to the debate. He acknowledges that individual differences do indeed exist, yet this needn’t be problematic – it should be understood and celebrated. For instance, girls’ brains are coded to secrete more serotonin than boys’ brains, which means there is a greater amount of the chemical to equalize unregulated impulses. Gurian says this may be one reason why toddler girls are often calmer than toddler boys. He also mentions the vital chemical we looked at previously: oxytocin, that jewel in the crown of female neurochemistry responsible for bonding and “maternal instinct.” If female brains secrete more oxytocin, for instance when little girls play with dolls or when women hear a baby cry in a crowded cinema, then it shows that the effects will be heightened within intimate activities such a sex, where oxytocin’s bonding response will really kick in. For men there is almost zero secretion which goes some way to explaining why one-night stands are often a more difficult prospect for women. Not that this implies it’s a healthy option for men either. Males are much slower to respond physiologically than women but it does not mean that the ability to care about such things is absent.

Then we have the brain’s hippocampus, a centre responsible for memory storage. Studies have found that it is larger and works more efficiently in girls than in boys, which means when it comes to remembering large amounts of information which is inputted in reasonably quick succession girls seem to have a built-in edge. Gurian uncovered the latest findings in brain imaging which revealed a tendency for boys’ brains – especially during puberty – to focus on one task at a time while girls’ brains are able to process larger amounts leading to a greater success for intuitive decision-making. He mentions that the downside of this ability is that young, adolescent girls may develop a “malleable self” with a reliance on others when it comes to concrete decision-making. The cause of high levels of males to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) can also be seen in a new light when we realise that female brains have 15 percent more blood flow volume and larger distribution than male brains. This bestows a greater ability to both think things through, though also increasing the likelihood of indecision. [4]

There are many more differences which Gurian eloquently describes for our edification. Yet, these very differences, instead of producing friction can surely create a “third force” of context and the creativity which can follow when the harmonious joining of the two polarities takes place. That takes knowledge of our individual “issues” and a wider comprehension of the pathologies presently shrouding our world. As third wave feminist author and social activist Naomi Wolf mentions in quoting Helen Fisher’s findings in the Anatomy of Love: “… nature designed men and women to collaborate for survival. ‘Collaboration’ implies free will and choice; even primate males do not succeed by dominating or controlling females. In her analysis, it serves everyone for men and women to share their sometimes different but often complementary strengths – a conclusion that seems reassuring, not oppressive.” [5]

Indeed it is. We can also say that some women in modern, Western societies are already dominating and controlling men – they just do it in entirely different ways. The rise of narcissism seen most strongly in the female population suggests this is having major consequences across all societies and places a crucial part in Official Culture as a whole. If Western women really want to make their undoubted exploitation and oppression of the past stay in the past, then perhaps jettisoning the wish to “have it all” at the expense of men’s rights is also necessary. To increase choice and equality is possible but this does not mean we seek to do and be the same things in a society that are already straining under the weight of narcissism and worse. This appears to be happening in much the same way that some sectors of the Jewish community use the phrase of “anti-semitism” to blockade constructive criticism of the treatment of Palestinians. The culture of victimhood does not encourage new visions.

There are also rights for men that are being eroded in ways that are not acknowledged, especially in the family courts. Notions like gender equality are effective in creating endless circular conflicts that attract dysfunctional minds with axes to grind. Men and women TOGETHER must forge their way to better choices, true freedom and human equality on a vast range of issues. But these divides will worsen if we do not acknowledge and tackle the true enemy which is a war against normal people directed from those in positions of power who largely conform to categories of psychopathy. THAT is the real issue here and one which affects all of us regardless of our particular “-ism” onto we have latched.

What is more, it is precisely because there is always present the creative tendency to embrace the best of men and women without creating divisions that it may have been subverted by CoIntelpro * along with so many other movements in the 1960s and 70s.  As it stands,  modern, Western feminism does not serve women rights in the way that we think and is ironically in danger of replacing one exploitation with another.

Enter: radical feminism.


*  “COINTELPRO is an acronym for a series of FBI counterintelligence programs designed to neutralize political dissidents. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO’s of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against radical political organizations. In the early 1950s, the Communist Party was illegal in the United States. The Senate and House of Representatives each set up investigating committees to prosecute communists and publicly expose them. (The House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, led by Senator Joseph McCarthy). When a series of Supreme Court rulings in 1956 and 1957 challenged these committees and questioned the constitutionality of Smith Act prosecutions and Subversive Activities Control Board hearings, the FBI’s response was COINTELPRO, a program designed to “neutralize” those who could no longer be prosecuted. Over the years, similar programs were created to neutralize civil rights, anti-war, and many other groups, many of which were said to be “communist front organizations.” As J. Edgar Hoover, longtime Director of the FBI put it.”  http://www.cointelpro.org. [What the public may not be aware of is these operations did not simply cease, but were utilised for all social domains. Of particular note is the New Age or Human Potential Movement, the foundations of which may have been purely a creation of intelligence agencies].

Notes

[1] ‘The narcissism of consumer society has left women unhappier than ever’ by Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian, July 26, 2009.
[2] ‘Author Accuses Women’s Groups of Racketeering’ Fox News, October 23, 2002.
[3] ‘Men Are From Mars: Neuroscientists Find That Men And Women Respond Differently To Stress’ Science Daily 2008.
[4] ‘Girl Wonders: Michael Gurian defines his post-feminist vision’ By Ceceilia Goodnow, Seattle Post Intelligencer, March 8, 2002. / The Wonder of Girls: Understanding the Hidden Nature of Our Daughters by Michael Gurian, Published by Simon & Schuster International; Reprint edition, 2003.|ISBN-10: 0743417038.
[5] ‘Feminism and the Male Brain’ By Naomi Wolf, May 29 2009. Project Syndicate, http://www.project-syndicate.org