The Evolving Zeitgeist: Groanings from the Right
I would like to introduce you to a blog by a conservative "traditionalist" woman who hates feminism as much as she hates Paul Elam, MRAs, etc....
This will give you some sense of the emerging "left" and "right" division within the non-feminist revolution. And, with certain reservations, I (Fidelbogen) would appear to be more to the left. Feminists, are you paying attention and taking notes here??
https://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/the-degradation-of-the-virtuous-woman-or-why-men-embrace-sluts-but-never-commit-to-them
To be honest, this poor woman doesn't fully get what feminism really is. Her grasp of the issues, I'm sorry to say, is roughly two inches deep. Not that I entirely blame her, since what's happening is horridly complex. And with the best will in the world it cannot be made simple. It cannot be "presently comprehended by the weakest noddle" as Jonathan Swift would say. Only long and deep study will yield the fruit of knowledge here. Fortunately, people like myself have studied long and deep, for years, and we do carry the torch beam in the darkness.
I left a comment on the blog, and screen-capped it in my customary way. (Click to enlarge.)
I recommend giving the linked blog post, and its accompanying comment thread, your careful attention. We Archimedians are quite keen on monitoring the objective state of play within this Great Game called the non-feminist revolution.
The mountain-top view, my friends! The mountain-top view!
This will give you some sense of the emerging "left" and "right" division within the non-feminist revolution. And, with certain reservations, I (Fidelbogen) would appear to be more to the left. Feminists, are you paying attention and taking notes here??
https://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/the-degradation-of-the-virtuous-woman-or-why-men-embrace-sluts-but-never-commit-to-them
To be honest, this poor woman doesn't fully get what feminism really is. Her grasp of the issues, I'm sorry to say, is roughly two inches deep. Not that I entirely blame her, since what's happening is horridly complex. And with the best will in the world it cannot be made simple. It cannot be "presently comprehended by the weakest noddle" as Jonathan Swift would say. Only long and deep study will yield the fruit of knowledge here. Fortunately, people like myself have studied long and deep, for years, and we do carry the torch beam in the darkness.
I left a comment on the blog, and screen-capped it in my customary way. (Click to enlarge.)
The mountain-top view, my friends! The mountain-top view!
posted by Fidelbogen at 1:33 PM
16 Comments:
There is a flaw with that definition.
The correct definition should be:
An unfounded hatred of women.
Here is a list of things that I am:
White-Supremacist-o-phobic.
Nazi-o-phobic.
You get the idea.
Like one of your earlier posts said - throwing rocks back at somebody throwing them at you is not assault - it is defense.
Hating somebody back who hates you should therefore not be labelled as a garden variety of hatred.
I think that things can be made simple.
She mentions marriage, but fails to mention divorce and what happens to men during a divorce.
She also makes no mention of the fact that the majority of divorces are initiated by women.
She does not clearly define what her definition of "promiscuity" is (I have heard many conflicting definitions).
The fact she thinks that without the threat of economic ruin - men would quickly leave their wives - shows what her REAL opinion of men is - the usual feminist B.S. of a "fear of commitment"
She may be a traditionalist, but she is not taking into account that feminism has already won. Being a traditionalist MAN carries no benefits.
typical - she is being gynocentric.
Nothing complicated.
All I saw was simplicity.
And - I asked her if she was a registered republican.
I saw no evidence on her blog of her political affiliations.
Bad assumption on your part.
Crow: If all of this seems simple to you, it is because you have studied it long enough to sort it out in your own mind. Congratulations.
Oh, thanks Fidelbogen.
Although, obviously, I have not figured out what link to push when commenting, as that first comment at the top belongs with the article where you link to a picture of the definition of misogyny...
Do I get some kind of diploma?
Or do my link-clicking skills nullify my graduation?
Fidelbogen:
Actually I think the current American political paradigm has moved so far to the Far Left, that traditional Conservatism isn't really represented by either party. And it's basically the same with the Mens Movement. On the Left, you have Radfems. On the Right, you have Tradfems. The second group is really only a throwback to the 'Social Purity' Suffragette-type feminists of the late 19th/early 20th Century.
Something that has always puzzled me: if these 'pro-MRA' women are so dedicated to fighting feminism, why don't they start their own counter-feminist movement and work on reforming their own gender? Why do they keep infiltrating MRM blogs telling men what to do and what to think? AVfM and Reddit are riddled with these types of women.
Eric: The meaning of 'left' and 'right' are known to fluctuate wildly according to the evolving historical narrative, and according to the immediate context.
But that said, it is clear to see that the non-feminist revolution (I don't say "men's movement") is developing a left-right fork.
Anything can develop a left-right fork. (From the 19th century, one thinks of the "left Hegelians" and the "right Hegelians".)
I couldn't even get past the first sentence of her entry:
'Women have been the biggest dupes of feminism. They have been manipulated, exploited and used as pawns thanks to the feminist ideology'
She's using the usual female tactic of portraying herself as the victim of some great big monster, some great conspiracy that 'made her do it': that 'made her' become promiscuous, that 'made her' lie, that made her favour abortions, that 'made her' become obese, that 'made her' do whatever. She does this because it means that she can blame this monster figure for all that she's done wrong, and thus make the monster take the blame for her actions, for something that she chose to do. Women will always try to find someone or something(real or immaginary) to blame for something they've done should society view that thing as 'bad'. They'll never change until they are made to be accoutable for their actions, and I wouldn't put money on that happening anytime soon.
(Here are some of my own thoughts on so-called female MRAs/Masculinists:
http://anotherandrosphereblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/on-female-mras-and-androsphere.html)
- AAB
Eric, if the entire modern American political landscape has moved so far to the Far Left, what would the opposite look like? A Far, Far Right political landscape?
Hi F, I was stopping by to drop off a link for you (might be old hat: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/gun-control-as-castration/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AlternativeRight+%28Alternative+Right%29) thought it was interesting, and then I saw this post. I read her post (skimmed), but I understood what she meant and why she would object to the MRA movement.
I would venture to say that most traditionalist (Catholic) women do not view or live under the impression that the relationship between the sexes is the zero-sum power struggle that feminism (and now the masculist MRA) are declaring it is. She is arguing that each sex needs to fulfill its own role in order for society to work.
From what I have seen from Paul Elam, I didn't get the impression that his disdain was exclusive to a sub-set for traditional women, but for traditional women. By and large he discounts any contributions that they make to a marriage, consigning all housewives to those representative of the Jersey Shore TV show, which is ridiculous.
If she is traditionalist (as in Catholic - I didn't research to see, but I've not met many others who are anti-feminist and who are not Catholic, though I don't put it out of the realm of possibility), divorce is not an option. Nor is contraception or abortion, meaning, if we marry, we are more than likely going to have a crapload of kids, and it's a full-time job and then some.
What it boils down to is that if women don't respect men for what they can do and for what they were created to do, and vice versa, men to women, or in other words if the social order as God intended it breaks down, everything goes to hell and the only way to fix it is to convince those whom we can to change their mindset.
Rather than take the view that feminism has already won (a hopeless proposition) and now we are just doing damage control and fight for men to get their piece of the pie as much as they can, traditionalists women are fighting for the future of society. There is an ideal to be reached. This is not it. Modern humanity has royally screwed things up (not without more than a little help from the Prince of Darkness), but we aren't content with leaving it that way and trying to muddle through, which is what it appears to me many men are willing to do. Don't fight for scraps of power in a false zero-sum scenario. The only thing that will do is prolong the feminist problem.
Women like this don't start their own movement and they "encroach" so to speak on the MRA sites because they have certain sympathies with what men are going through are anti-feminist, but they are even less in number than male anti-feminists. At this point, they are taking flak from both sides,from the feminists, and from many anti-feminists, who identify cherishing women with weakness.
Researched that blog some more, and I retract my agreement with her (at least in part). I don't see how their ideals aren't following the early feminists. It seems like a different version of have the cake and eat it too. The Jersey Shore housewife is a natural outgrowth of that type of mentality, and unfortunately it fits the extreme end of the bill of what Paul Elam was talking about. They allow divorce, and mention nothing about the negative influences that abortion and contraception have on modern women and their mentality towards and relationship with men. It seems to me like there main purpose in life is to be on the receiving end (in the purposes page, I saw precious little about giving), something I consider entirely antithetical to the role of women. Oh, and the other part of their role is to look pretty, be faithful, and make sure the house is clean and food is cooked for their hubby and 1.5 children. Yeah, some real sacrifice there.
Hello Trent:
I notice that you used the phrase "MRA movement". Well, there really is no such thing as the "MRA movement". That's a phrase which the feminists would love to promote as much as possible in order to stigmatize (smear) any person or group which is making the feminist power structure "feel the pinch". ;) However, apart from the reference to "men's rights" it does not correspond to any clearly defined thing in the world. (It's more like a bunch of venn diagrams which sometimes overlap a lot, but other times just barely.)
Hello Trent (again):
I was going to address further points in your comment no.1, but I see that comment no.2 largely supercedes it, so . . .
I think maybe you understand now where a lot of disgruntled men are coming from, when they inveigh against blue pill "socon" women (which includes trad-cons).
The real point at issue here is blue pill v. red pill.
It has little to do with so-called left v. right, since "greater feminism" (which doesn't always go by the name of feminism)draws its sustenance from the entire culture -- straight across the board. If feminism grew ONLY from the "left", or ONLY from the "right", it would not be viable in the complex, malignant form that we see today.
So, feminism is everybody's baby, you might say! :(
On another note, you speak of a "zero sum game". Well, sadly enough, that is precisely what feminism has created, like it or not. (The feminists love to say "it's not a zero sum game", but they are bloody hypocrites and liars trying to con us.)
It is, in coldly objective, actualistic terms, a zero-sum game. However, that does not mean that all hope is lost. But in order to undo the gordian knot which feminist innovation has tied the world into, a certain coordination of efforts and effects (let us call it)will be necessary. I like to to think of this as a red pill coalition.
I grant that the feminists have created a zero-sum game, but it is artificial and that is why it is collapsing, why society is collapsing. Men and women are in no way on different ends of a pendulum, and to view it like that will cause the break down of order, as we have seen. I just hope that the egalitarians come to realize it and jump ship on the idea. The more marriages/relationships that are created with the egalitarian thesis in mind, the more we will continue to see divorces, single-parent homes, unstable children, and more sadly, mass shootings.
@Trent:
What's needed is a revolutionary model that incorporates some of the points you have stated. It will both accomplish the (political) task at hand, and form the basis for a social reconstruction to follow. In my "message to non-feminist women", I sketched a vision for this.
Forweg:
No, not necessarily. For example, liberals of the last generation: Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy are moderate conservatives by today's standards. Today's Democrats would be probably be closer to International Socialists were then.
On the other hand, past conservatives were men like Calvin Coolidge or Dwight Eisenhower who believed in limited government. Probably closer to libertarians in their outlook. Today's Republicans would more likely be classified as National Socialists back then.
The point being that we've shifted today closer to Socialism and it's only right vs. left wing Socialism that's at issue politically.
Fidelbogen:
'It is a zero-sum game.'
True. Actually feminism is a revolutionary doctrine and sees the right/left paradigm as a superfluous patriarchal construct. They don't envision a gender-supremacist future utopia as liberal or conservative, but simply 'feminist.'
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home