Radical Feminism

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

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.

Feminisim or Infiltration? II: “… Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle,”

“Although feminism speaks the language of liberation, self-fulfillment, options, and the removal of barriers, these phrases invariably mean their opposites and disguise an agenda at variance with the ideals of a free society.”

Michael Levin, Professor of Philosophy, City of New York University


In the context of an Official Culture steeped in narcissism, feminism has not been excluded from its influence.

The originators of radical feminism were largely lesbian, seeking active polarisation of men and women rather than integration of values and common ground. Radical feminists believe that men are not relevant to a new society, women being the superior sex, amounting to a form of matriarchal fascism. Some believe that radical feminism and its subtle undercurrent in standard feminism is in fact an outlet and cover for misandry and not created as a natural response to the oppression women have suffered historically. Many of those who call themselves “Third Wave” feminists think of the concept of men’s rights as a personal slight against centuries of feminine oppression:

How could that possibly be credible since we have suffered so much and suffer still ?

How could the feminist movement possibly be making matters worse?

And this is to misunderstand the nature of our social systems which have engineered men and women to be products of its most toxic effects, spiritually and psychologically. Ponerological influences will distort and subvert the purest of movements until we recognise what is really going on. Unfortunately psycho-spiritual corruption of this kind leaves no movement or belief untouched.

The history of subverting positive movements for change is a tried and tested one from intelligence agencies, the 20th Century version of which started back in the 1950s with the rise of political dissidents, most notably within ethnic minority, peace, and civil liberty movements. There is also substantial evidence that such operations are now firmly entrenched within the New Age or human potential movement; within ecology and green politics as well as anti-globalisation activism. This has been especially effective in the U.S. Far from closing down in the 1970s these covert operations have continued apace, and have been taken to new levels of obfuscation and deception in line with the public’s growing awareness and Information Age. But each movement is different. Whereas in some cases it is tasked with creating lies and disinformation and to funnel awareness into intellectual and spiritual cul-de-sacs, in others, it is to stimulate conditions by which certain movements will implode from within taking the positive aspects of the seed idea with it. In the case of feminism and the gay pride movement it has been to promote radicalism and thus subvert the underlying message and thus increase the divide and therefore the emotional and instinctive capital available for the Establishment.

bicycle

The hugely influential feminist writer and activist Gloria Steinham responsible for planting the misanthropic seed embodied in the maxim: “women need men like a fish needs a bicycle,” was, in all probability a paid CIA asset throughout the 1960s and 70s tasked with routing student communists and then promoting radical feminism.[1] The founder of Ms. Magazine an influential feminist rag, Steinham managed to have this funded indirectly through the CIA and the Rockefeller foundation, the latter of which seems to crop up whenever a branch of social engineering needs some financial support. This makes the assumption that modern US feminism was also a grassroots, natural reaction to men’s oppression rather insubstantial.

What we are seeing in both the US and UK is a strange reversal of gender roles. This does not mean that men are becoming nannies and women racing drivers, rather the emotional fabric of the sexes is undergoing a loss of identity where biological roles that go very deep are being discarded for the wrong reasons. If a woman wants to stay at home and take on the role of housewife – a desperately important role and job in the family unit – she is made to feel as though she is acquiescing to male domination. Yet, this is increasingly not an option anyway. Most women have no choice but to enter the corporate world due to the nature of our increasingly fragile economies. Naomi Wolf stated: “For almost 40 years, that era’s Western feminist critique of rigid sex-role stereotyping has prevailed. In many ways, it has eroded or even eliminated the kind of arbitrary constraints that turned peaceable boys into aggressive men and stuck ambitious girls in low-paying jobs.” [2] While wanting more equality in the workplace, the right to have children while discarding the very real differences between men and women it seems to suggest that a serious revision is in order as to what kind of feminism operates in our Western societies and whether we need that “-ism” at all.

A recent UK study found that “… over 60 percent of young men aged between 18 and 29 are competent ironers, with only 10 percent able to maintain a car and almost half can’t even change a tyre. Three quarters regularly don an apron in the kitchen and almost 80 percent take on housework. Young men are so in touch with their emotions [that] a whopping 85 percent are comfortable crying in front of others.” [3] Most importantly however: “…They are also more obsessed with themselves than any other generation, with two thirds of them striving to attain a perfectly toned body.” This is far from satisfactory for “…women aged 18 to 29 [who] complained that men are not masculine enough with 60 percent saying they’d prefer a man to take control in their relationship.” [4] While over in Canada a pattern that is also being reflected in Europe shows: “…that women have outpaced men in education and earnings growth: 22 per cent of husbands have wives whose income now exceeds theirs, compared to 4 per cent in 1970. The rise in women’s earnings corresponds with an upsurge in their education.” The women were quickly dubbed “alpha wives.” [5]

Addressing the male/female socio-economic divide is obviously a positive aspiration. But has being a “liberated woman” actually reduced the choices rather than increased them? Does being free to have as much sex as you want as often as you want liberate? It would be churlish in the extreme to disregard the chains on women’s sexuality and basic freedoms for millennia. We only have to look at the global sex trade, female circumcision and the drug-addled Nigerian prostitutes on my street corner to see that women and the sexual objectification that still surrounds the female is as prevalent as ever. However, in the Western, feminist, middle-class context we are looking at here, something else has happened as a reaction to that sexploitation.

Strategy consultant Susan Walsh made the point succinctly from her blog Hooking up smart: “Apparently in the femosphere, having a lot of casual sex is a way of communicating that you are confident, and sexy, and have no needs – or at least, not any that might be fulfilled by a male. I believe there are less risky ways of getting that message across.” And ultimately more rewarding and fulfilling – which applies to both men and women.

Walsh shares with us the fact that American men, in selecting among 67 desirable traits, ranked sexual faithfulness and loyalty #1. If women are playing out the feminism dream of being independent, non-dependent, strong and free-spirited which is believed to be equated with the male cliché of “sowing his oats” and “hooking up” as a normal strategy then, as Walsh mentions, this is a very poor strategy, for women who seek a long-term relationship, or life partner. And if the bonding chemical exists in much higher quantities in women than men, and women’s brains are also hard-wired to nurture then this is surely setting up some body-mind dissonance at a subconscious level. Usually these denials come home to roost.

Walsh quotes from The Evolution of Desire (Buss, 1994) to back up her claims:

Studies demonstrate that women’s preferences for short-term mates include availability as a marriage partner. They strongly resemble their preferences for a husband: kind, romantic, understanding, exciting, stable, healthy, humorous, and generous with resources. In other words, women have high standards for both short-term and long-term relationships, or at least that’s how we’ve evolved thus far.

Conversely, men select for very different traits when seeking short-term sexual partners. Compared with their long-term preferences, men don’t want casual partners who are prudish, conservative or have a low sex drive. In contrast to standards for committed relationships, for short-term sex they want: sexual experience, including promiscuity, and a high sex drive.” [6]

This means that men have had both sides of their bread buttered in that they have been praised and lauded when notching up conquests from college to office exploits while women have traditionally been seen as “sluts” or femme fatales when doing the same. And now, thanks to pathological influences from on high, these ratios have become more extreme.

But if men’s natural preference is for women who are faithful and loyal – and women should expect the same from men – then it behooves feminists to understand that doing what men do under largely misguided values is not necessarily true freedom or biologically healthy, given what we know about gender differences. Nor will it increase the likelihood of a stable male-female relationship in the future. Promiscuity is unfortunately a male throwback that is stacked against the female doing the same. Men cannot give birth, after all.  Biological differences are inescapable even at a more subtle level. Walsh observes for the male:

“A woman’s sexual history serves as a proxy, or indicator of future behavior. It is not perfect, but men can and do make use of this information when selecting partners. This does not mean that a promiscuous woman cannot find a mate, but it does mean that the pool of men from which she may select has shrunk dramatically. A woman may say, ‘I would never want a guy who felt that way,’ and that’s perfectly legitimate. Still, it’s important that she understand the effectiveness of various sexual strategies in mating so that she may make informed decisions.” [7]

At the beginning of the 21st Century has feminism misinformed and confused rather than offer true liberation where it counts? Does becoming more like the corporate alpha male augment and value the feminine principle of nurturing, cooperation and bonding? When much of our culture is a product of narcissism and psychopathy, it is highly doubtful. Once again, feminism is just as vulnerable to ponerological influences as any other “-ism.” Therefore, there’s a reason why some women no longer see feminism as positive as they can already see that is has been co-opted and  absorbed into the Divide and Rule dichotomy so favoured by the Establishment class.

Gustav_Klimt_kiss

“The Kiss” by Gustav Klimt (1907-1908) (wikipedia)

As journalist Lisa Guiliani passionately explains from a recent article on the same, not all women are feminists and that does not mean they are unthinking or uncaring but often have a more universalist view, where both sexes are seen as victims of the Establishment system:

The Feminist Movement only represents women who THINK LIKE THE Movement. It does NOT represent ALL women. Let’s see how many feminists support my right to express ideas that run counter to their group think. Because they sure as hell don’t represent women who think like me. I am no bible-thumping christian, and I am no deluded false political paradigm swigging ‘Democrat or Republican’. The Feminist Movement does NOT support or represent women who CHALLENGE its group think or its agenda. I am just a woman.

I do not hate men, in spite of and despite any of the bad experiences I’ve had with men or because of the bad men I’ve been involved with, or because of my bad choices and poor decisions overall. And I am a mother, who has seen the negative effects of joining the workforce in my own life – and the irreparable toll it took upon my family over the years. I see what a lot of these feminist ideas have wrought upon the world, and how they’ve flipped this country inside out and upside down.

I don’t think the trade-off was worth it. What have we really gained? More self-respect? More worthless money? A ‘right’ to a bogus vote? More meaningful relationships with the opposite sex? A surefire way to get rid of unwanted pregnancy even as we continue having more irresponsible sex? Wow. So many ‘choices’. How impressive.

Men are so leery of women now, it’s a wonder anyone tries to date us at all. But that’s okay, right? We don’t NEED to date men anymore. We can date each other. Terrific. And while that appeals to a lot of women these days, it does NOT appeal to me. So I’m left to navigate the screwed-up dating world, full of messed up, broken people who present themselves as shiny, happy, successful, shallow, perfect and plastic. [8]


“I consider myself 100 percent a feminist, at odds with the feminist establishment in America. For me the great mission of feminism is to seek the full political and legal equality of women with men. However, I disagree with many of my fellow feminists as an equal opportunity feminist, who believes that feminism should only be interested in equal rights before the law. I utterly oppose special protection for women where I think that a lot of the feminist establishment has drifted in the last 20 years.”

Camille Paglia, American academic and social critic


mother and child

Mother and Child bronze at http://www.e-hood-a-art.com

The sweeping changes that were brought about by the so-called Sexual Revolution fuelled by the counter culture trappings of psychedelia, LSD and the Kinsey Report suggest that the end result was not at all what the original proponents of free love and equality ever expected. Free love or self-indulgence? Sexual freedom or cheap sex?  This is not to say that every aspect of this revolution was bad – not by a long way – but it seems the pendulum has swung back towards its worst aspects and become stuck. This social force has engrained them into present day consciousness as the only way to be; where mutual love and respect of the sexes “… has given us the trashy ‘pornogrification’ of our society.” [9]

If women were “… conned into abandoning self-respect” then men were duped into thinking that such easily “accessible goods” were worth having. In the end, meaningless sex – like the mediocrity of Official Culture on which it derives its sustenance, morphs into a meaningless life. And that is coincidentally, the spiritual malaise most noticeable in 21st century Western society as journalist Bel Mooney eloquently laments:

Health Centre handed out the Pill like sweeties. So you wouldn’t get pregnant – good. But at the same time you had no reason to be careful – bad. Most of us embraced the hippie-esque idea that sexual freedom was a beautiful thing to be celebrated. ‘Seize the day,’ we shouted, and threw old notions like fidelity out of the window. But beneath all those naive and high-sounding ideals, the sexism of supposedly radical and free-thinking men on the left could be summed up with: ‘A woman’s place is underneath.’

As the writer and feminist pioneer Rosie Boycott has said: ‘What was insidious about the underground was that it pretended to be alternative. But it wasn’t providing an alternative for women. It was providing an alternative for men in that there were no problems about screwing around.’

The artist Nicola Lane, another young woman of the age, adds: ‘It was paradise for men – all these willing girls. But the problem with the willing girls was that a lot of the time they were willing not because they particularly fancied the people concerned but because they felt they ought to. There was a lot of misery.’ [10]

For Michael Gurian, the cultural dogma of media stereotypes, though irrefutable is not the main issue. He believes that: “… the foremothers of the ‘70s overemphasized power and go-it-alone independence at the expense of women’s deep need for emotional attachments, including the honorable pursuit of motherhood.” Though much of tradition was deeply flawed so too was feminism in Gurian’s view. He and his wife, family therapist Gail Reid-Gurian suggest a more “logical” and “compromising” approach called “womanism” which advocates “absorbing the best of the past” so that girls’ and women have equal opportunity rights “… but where their yearning for a ‘safe web of intimate relationships’ is recognised and valued.

This of course, extends both ways.

Womanism grew out of the response from black women to racial and gender oppression and has since been taken on by many women in general as an alternative to feminism. Yet, the key difference is what Gurian thinks is the “sacred” nature of motherhood and the symbiosis of male and female potential.

He states:

“… human females and males need to form intimate, long-lasting and symbiotic relationships in order to feel safe and personally fulfilled and in order to raise the next generation safely” […] “Women who never have children are still mothers,”… “They mother communities, other people’s children, the earth itself.” […] Mothering, with a capital M, is the primary goal of girls. I mean by that, mothering the world. My argument would be that females are wired to mother. Some may never have children, but they’re still wired to mother.” [11]

That conclusion would no doubt get many feminists foaming at the mouth at the sheer audacity of such a statement.

Gurian believes that for “the 10 to 20 percent of girls in crisis – especially girls who are abused, disturbed or systematically disrespected…” feminism presents a conceptual framework that can offer a way through. However, he goes on to state that:  “…it’s not the right model for the majority of girls who are doing well at any given moment.”

He also makes the interesting link between girls, family and by extension, the loss of community that now defines much of contemporary society. Gurian’s view places importance on the female’s drive for attachment that is higher than the male. Consequently, he envisages the provision of a “three-family system” which includes not just biological parents and siblings but a far wider range of an extended family such as mentors, single parents, day-care providers and individuals from church, the local neighbourhood and school.  But these ties must be based on “true bonding” something that could become a strength for women in the correct environment. Without these safeguards and in a society that flows in the opposite direction to true bonding, then that quality becomes inverted, expressing itself as dependency and manipulative strategies to obtain the male.

101_1219© infrakshun

As economic realities encroach further into fragmented communities that were once the norm in the pre-cartel-capitalist West, it may just provide the impetus for not only some collective soul-searching but for the natural tendency for human beings to work together and form stronger communities and where the roles of men and women can naturally honour their biological pre-dispositions without compromising their potential. In a more relaxed and attentive environment without strains of radicalism perhaps a return to what is truly important for individual and community survival may reduce the tendency of narcissistic self-preservation and self-promotion.

To that end, Michael Gurian and Gail Reid-Gurian present a summary of the feminist and new womanist principles:

Feminist position   

  • Our goal as a human race should be gender androgyny.
  • Girls suffer more than boys. Males are more privileged than females.
  • The non-working woman is not financially independent and thus is potentially a victim of men.
  • Masculinity is defective and dangerous. Females must react against it.
  • Marriage is an inherently flawed institution and secondary to the needs of women. Achieving female independence is the hardest work of our civilization.
  • Key words: power and empowerment.

Womanist position

  • Women and men by nature are not the same and do not function in the same way. Human life is passionate and progressive as much because of differences as similarities.
  • Women and men are fellow victims of a fear- and violence-based social system and have different but equally painful wounds.
  • The ideal situation for a woman is one in which she is valued equally for work within and outside of the home.
  • Masculinity is mysterious and we need to understand, clarify, accept and shape it meaningfully rather than fearfully.
  • Marriage is sacred and essential to human progress, especially when a couple is raising children. Achieving stable, healthy attachments is the hardest work of our civilization.
  • Key words: self-knowledge and service. [12]

Among many who provide alternatives to the current male dominated paradigm and the female emulation which is following closely behind, social and cultural historian Riane Eisler’s scholarly classic The Chalice and the Blade and her Cultural Transformation Theory is vital in this context. She proposes a “Dominator model” that includes both Patriarchal and Matriarchal cultures that dominated humanity based on the idea that one gender was inferior to the other. The second model is what Ms. Eisler calls the “Partnership Model,” which is based on the principle of “linking rather than ranking.” [13]

spring woman

“Spring Woman” | © infrakshun

She goes on to explain a social disruption of huge proportions that altered the Western Civilisation’s cultural evolution and natural pathways towards partnership. This was caused by invaders who “ushered in a very different form of social organization,” a warrior race who “worshipped the lethal power of the blade – the power to take rather than give life.” [14]

Perhaps this was essentially a huge rise in the incidence of psychopathy and the dominance and separation it has shaped ever since? She explains the ramifications of this shift:

If we stop and think about it, there are only two basic ways of structuring the relations between the female and male halves of humanity. All societies are patterned on either a dominator model – in which human hierarchies are ultimately backed up by force or the threat of force – or a partnership model, with variations in between.

If we look at the whole span of our cultural evolution from the perspective of cultural transformation theory, we see that the roots of our present global crises go back to the fundamental shift in our prehistory that brought enormous changes not only in social structure but also in technology. This was the shift in emphasis from technologies that sustain and enhance life to the technologies symbolized by the Blade: technologies designed to destroy and dominate. This has been the technological emphasis through most of recorded history. And it is this technological emphasis, rather than technology per se, that today threatens all life on our globe.” [15]

This is directly linked to the loss of biological, emotional and ultimately spiritual understanding in both sexes. Technology is still linked to this dominator / psychopathic model whether it is expressed through drone attacks, smart agri-business or transhumanist pop-culture. Moreover, the sexual and religious bias radiating across the last thousand years has perpetuated a desperate ignorance regarding the female and male dominance cycles that ebbed and flowed in ancient times. Largely male educators and scholars were raised from a background of stern Judeo-Christian bias which has overseen the history of education from elementary to University and beyond, where the source of all evil derives from the sin of Eve who was tempted by the Serpent leading humanity to fall from the Edenic State.

Is it any wonder that women were seen as inferior for so long, and that the emasculation of man is now reflecting that disorientation and loss of sexual and spiritual identity? In this context, feminism is as much a part of the dominator system as the overt patriarchy of the past.

 


Notes

[1] ‘Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem’By Nancy Borman, Village Voice 1979.
[2] op. cit. Wolf.
[3] ‘British men losing their masculinity’ Metro.co.uk 2010.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘Are men being robbed of their masculinity?’ By Zosia Bielski, Globe and Mail Sep. 30, 2010.
[6] ‘The Essential Truth About Female Promiscuity’ by Susan Walsh November 8 2010. http://www.hookingupsmart.com. Walsh quotes from The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating by David M. Buss; 1994.
[7] Ibid.
[8] ‘Thoughts on the Feminist Movement – Why I Don’t Clap along’ by Lisa Guiliani, Sott.net, April 1, 2012
[9] ‘My generation created the sexual revolution – and it has been wrecking the lives of women ever since’ By Bel Mooney, The Daily Mail, 2 December 2009.
[10] Ibid.
[11] op. cit. Gurian.
[12] Ibid.
[13] The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future by Riane Eisler. Published by Mandala Books, 1996.p.xix
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.

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