In spite of the fact that
the tidal wave of political neo-feminism currently sweeping
mostly the Anglo-Saxon West – just as is a number of other raw
political movements masked as mere social justice movements – has
become an extremely delicate topic for many (mostly because of the
almost religious sacredness veneer imparted to the subject so that
anyone who dares to rationally criticize any aspects of it runs the
risk of becoming a victim of demagogic witch-hunt, social smear
tactics and ad-hominem attacks on “pseudo-moral grounds”), I
venture to express some critical notes on certain facets of this
phenomenon – the neo-feminism which, unlike the classic feminism
with its undisputed conquests, has some really dubious ends and
results.
Of course my notes
express only my opinion, not devoid of natural bias, but as any
rational criticism directed not at the people but at the idea or
phenomenon, they are open for critical discussion and rational
counter-arguments (as opposed to ad hominem attacks and smear –
almost the only two methods notoriously but unsurprisingly used by
the neo-feminism in the social and political space).
IN SHORT
In short, my critical
conclusions regarding the present day wave of neo-feminism in the
West, especially its Anglo-Saxon part, amount to this:
This movement or
phenomenon mostly bears a genuinely political character (term
“genuine political” explained below in the next section), pursues
as its final goal truly political purposes, not social and moral
purposes, whereas the true feminism was aimed at the opposite goal of
social and ethical equality, not gaining raw political power and
political advantage (true feminism exerted political pressure, just
like many things do, but it was never political by its nature and
goals).
Neo-feminism is
intrinsically directed at building a wall between the two halves of
humankind – women and men – the wall of polarization and
antagonism, fears and distrust between the two genders, stimulating
bellicose archetypes, sowing the seeds of animosity on a social scale
in the socio-cultural DNA, as opposed to the genuine feminism the
ultimate purpose of which was social, legal and ethical harmony
between the two halves of the humankind, dissipation of inequality
and biases related thereto, destroying the wall of fears and
distrust, creating more understanding between the two sexes and the
basis for mutual enjoyment of co-existence and development both on
the social and individual level. In its predictable results, if not
outright purpose, the neo-feminism effectively destroys, not supports
the deep humanist values of the true feminism.
In its methods the
neo-feminism uses demagoguery based on fanning fears and distrust, as
opposed to the rational argument and critical discussion, and the
result of that creates some deleterious cultural perversions, such
as, for example, social masculinization of female collective identity
and inhibition of some natural intrinsic aspects of the female nature
and character.
In very simple layman's
terms, instead of using and socially promoting fundamental exclusive
advantages of the female nature and character so that, for example,
women might have enough power “to grab the men – their sons and
husbands – by the scruff of their neck and pull them out of the
trenches of war” where they kill each other in their millions on
the regular basis due to their male competitive warlike aggressive
inclinations, and set them to the more worthy cause of growing new
lives and teaching children, women tend towards the opposite
propensity of taking a gun, putting on uniforms and burrowing
themselves into the same ugly trenches of war on a par with men,
trying to prove to men and themselves that they can do the same ugly,
deeply male by their nature things no worse than men can do them –
the crowning glory of feminism indeed! This is in contradistinction
to the classic feminism, one of the desired aim of which actually was
the enhancement and promotion of those positive purely female
advantages of character that are not sufficiently present in the male
nature, promotion of mutual cooperation and knowledge-seeking
curiosity in both sexes towards each other, the balancing of the
intrinsic male propensity to high risks and excessive competition
with the feminine propensity to cooperation and risk mitigation
thereby creating a much more harmonious, socially cohesive, friendly
and peaceful society.
That, of course, is not
what the present neo-feminism does: in fact it is directed at
depriving women of their deep natural advantages and identity and
inducing them to blindly force upon themselves some intrinsically
male characteristics to one degree or another, and the most atrocious
aspects of those characteristics too.
In other words, instead
of questioning the very moral foundations and social impacts of some
“games” and the rules of those games that were invented very long
time ago by men for men because of domination of men the present
feminism actually accepts them blindly (or on purpose) and tries to
force women to compete with men within the systems that from the very
start were created by men partially based on very dubious moral
grounds and sometimes ruthless premises and visions of human nature
and value (or lack thereof) of human life.
Instead of reviewing the
ethical and aesthetic aspects of, for example, boxing sport and
create new games, women are conditioned by the new feminism into
trying to be “equal” to men in their ability to punch each other
faces into a bloody pulp, proving everybody how they can be no less
mad than men.
Instead of rationally
questioning and reforming tectonically the very moral grounds and
motivations of the man-created international relationship
philosophies and military policies, that have generated thousands of
wars and ruthlessly swept away hundreds of millions of human lives
(those very lives of sons and daughters that women, thanks to mother
nature, give birth to and have special emotional experience and
knowledge about), the neo-feminism pushes women to actually be like
men and pit themselves against men as equals in succeeding in the
same typically aggressive bloodthirsty rules of the perverted game
and visions of the societal relations (my personal hope for women's
potential to save the world from the claws of the brother-killing
modus operandi of the present nation-states created and perpetuated
by men I already mentioned years ago:
https://dr-world.blogspot.com/2012/02/girls-dont-break-my-heart-save-world.html).
Instead of questioning and fighting the very male-created corporate
culture and its underlying perverted (anti)ethical philosophies
(especially in the Anglo-Saxon West), according to which the quickest
promotion and highest remuneration is given to those who are most
aggressive in appropriating merits and ideas, most skilful and
manipulative in shifting the responsibility and blame to others, most
vociferous and demagogic in the advertisement and PR of fake or
stolen achievements, most insistent in demanding higher rewards,
women are often cajoled by the neo-feminism to either try to excel in
this ugly (un)ethical frame of reference created by men, or just
ascribe the problem to the assumption that the root of their
disenfranchisement is just a superficial discriminatory attitude
towards their gender (whereas in reality many of those men who for
one reason or another don't like to behave in the gambling aggressive
manner that the corporate culture requires them to, happen to be at
the same disadvantage as many women are in the corporate world). In
other words, again, instead of “moving chair to the table” the
“table is moved to the chair”, and instead of treating the cause
to repair the effect, the effect is mendaciously exploited by
neo-feminist demagogues to falsify the cause.
The latter example cannot
but bring to mind another field that also uses the “leaven” of
victimhood, revenge and infantilism upon which the neo-feminism was
created and has been fermenting, namely reactions and attitudes
towards the deeply perverted elements of sexual culture (as opposed
to the culture of intimate love) in the Western society (again,
especially in the Anglo-Saxon part of it, and most prominently in the
US) and philosophies (or rather the absence thereof) of rectifying
that culture.
While at the deepest
level the miserable failure of the “sexual revolution” that made
the sexual culture in North America arguably even worse in many
aspects than it had been prior that revolution (that's not to say it
had been particular good before in the first place) is among the most
profound causes of the brick wall of misunderstanding, lack of
empathy and cohesion, inequity and inequality in many aspects of the
social relationship between the two halves of the humankind, the
neo-feminism unsurprisingly doesn't address that problem at all but
rather parasitically exploits the more superficial consequences of
that problem to politically propagate the climate of social vendetta,
infinite reparation, hysteria and distrust, subliminally implanting
on the collective mind the emotional pattern according to which the
cause of righteous, almost religious in its spirit, crusade against
millions of men who try to solicit sexual relationship with women by
using ethically unscrupulous methods has anything to do with the
tasks and goals of real feminism. In other words, the neo-feminism
stirs hate towards the agents of bad culture as opposed to the battle
with the real socio-psychological causes of this morbid sexual
culture.
This was given a special
impetus by recent infamous Hollywood revelations and following
campaigns. Indeed, the ethical case against those thousands of men
who unscrupulously use the power of their position to solicit sexual
gratification from women is not different from those individuals who,
by quirk of fate, happened to be gay (or bisexual) and abused the
power of their position to solicit sexual gratification from other
men, with the only exception that the latter cases are rarer in
statistical terms (though not unheard-of at all neither at present
nor in the past) mainly because of the lesser percentage of gays
among men by comparison. This case, while absolutely just in its own
right like any other case against the abuse of power for personal
interests and gratifications, has little to do with the purposes of
real feminism and equality of rights between genders. Yet the social
and cultural causes that lead to the creation and self-reproduction
of the very perverted proclivity among so many men towards these
particular ways of channelizing their sexual force do actually have
everything to do with the ultimate tasks and goals of the true
feminism, but those deep causes are the last thing that this neo- or
pseudo-feminism really wants to investigate and deal with. And not
surprisingly so, because if it did want to fight the real objective
causes of the problem then its genuine political purposes of the
fear-and-hate-based quasi-religious vendetta-oriented crusade would
be immediately undermined.
The list of such sad
examples goes on with no end, demonstrating this bitter irony when
those, who are supposed to change the very values of the institutions
and culture, actually compete with each other and other males in
trying to prove that they can promote – no worse than males
themselves – the same perverted values that have been created and
supported by males for males since the dawn of the male-dominated
civilization to begin with. What a splendid triumph of the
neo-feminism indeed in the 21st century!
As I mentioned, true
feminism by its nature is of a temporary character because feminist
struggle is needed only in a society where gender inequality is still
present. In this respect the final goal and triumph of the true
feminism is to improve the societal culture to the degree where the
feminism is not needed anymore, and where the fact that somebody was
born a woman or a man means no more than the fact that the person was
born on a Tuesday or Friday. So the true honest purpose of feminism
naturally leads to the gradual disappearance of feminism, just as the
true effort to eradicate drug abuse in the case of success leads
gradually to the disappearance of the need of the drug enforcement
agencies themselves in the ideal outcome.
That's true, of course,
only if the feminism is really true, which means it pursues
establishment and eradication of the fundamental causes of the gender
inequality from the socio-cultural field.
But it is not the case
with the neo-feminism: on the contrary, neo-feminism, as an ultimate
parasite, exploits, sponges and feeds upon the fundamental roots of
the problems leading to the inequality and walls in the relationship
between two halves of the humankind, not only avoiding any
investigation and eradication of those root causes but actually
trying to perpetuate and augment them. In its radical extremes, the
neo-feminism sets sisters against brothers, and husbands against
wives. Its goal is war, its method is war, its result is war. It is a
form of parasitically motivated breeding of a special type of “latent
civil war”, which in its human disastrous consequences in the long
term may be comparable with the effects of a conventional civil war.
The behavioural pattern
of neo-feminism in the US is quite similar to the modus operandi of
the anti-drug or anti-terror or anti-crime agencies in that country,
who never pursue the real eradication of drug abuse or terrorist
activity, but who are actually interested in creating the conditions
in which the drug abuse and radicalization always bloom so that those
agencies can exploit those tragedies to justify and bloat their
budgets and gain political power within the present state system.
One (but not the only
one) of genuinely fundamental problems that have to be solved (but
never tackled or talked about in reality) is the total disaster and
bankruptcy of the so-called sexual revolution and emancipation in the
US and some other Western countries (not because those things are not
needed, but because of how perversely they were understood and
realized, and because of the kind of socio-sexual culture the “old
sexual order” was replaced with), which in its turn created an
atrocious self-reproducing culture of sexual relationship and
attitudes, manifesting itself in the ever-growing amount of demand
for porn, ever-increasing divorce rate, ever-rising and eye-popping
rates of sexual assaults and perverse things throughout the fabric of
society and its institutions. We still, alas, live in a sexually
perverted society as a whole, not just in a society with many
individual perversions.
This perverted culture,
that has to do with a warp of the sexual part of the collective mind,
cannot but play a very important role in impeding true feminism from
achieving its goals – and why shouldn't it? Are the sexual forces
not simultaneously intersexual forces? Are they not the most
primordial forces that already in childhood form the deepest
expectations and attitudes of the genders towards each other?
But not only does the
neo-feminism have no desire to understand and rectify what is wrong
in the bedroom of the nation, but actually it has every interest in
preserving the situation as it is as long as possible, because it
gives more security to its purely political parasitic project and the
pursuit of its political goals.
The neo-feminism is an
ultimate political parasite that exploits and sponges on the real
problem and, at the same time, purposely nourishes that problem,
breeding radicalization, fear and hate and epitomizing the festering
wound instead of healing it.
Of course, it doesn't
mean at all that all the people who have found themselves involved in
that movement have anything to do with the above negative attributes
or motives, but it rather means that that viral movement and ideology
of neo-feminism cajoles lots of people and their motives into
assisting the parasitic purposes of the neo-feminism.
To that I should only add
that there is probably only one thing that can be uglier and more
morally grotesque than extreme ideological sexism, namely the
exquisite intentional exploitation of the bright ideals of feminism
as a cover – sheep's clothing on a wolf – and tool for pursuing
inglorious political agendas and interest in gaining raw power for
the sake of power itself. There is no excuse for those who
consciously engage in this malicious strategies, for not only their
true motives and goals have nothing whatsoever to do with the ethics
and well-being of human society, but the actual values of feminism
for them are nothing more than the dust under their feet, and the
measure of cynicism and indifference towards any moral values used in
pursuit of political gains and required for such manipulation cannot
be surpassed even by the conservative “dinosaur-like” elements of
the society who still cling to the archetype of male “natural”
advantages averagely in comparison to women.
POLITICAL SHAM FEMINISM DISPLACING SOCIAL TRUE FEMINISM
POLITICAL SHAM FEMINISM DISPLACING SOCIAL TRUE FEMINISM
There's still lots of
confusion about the vague and manipulative use of the word
“political”, so that this term has become a justification and
euphemism for any unfair, unjust, and sometimes atrociously immoral
courses of action pursued by politicians, the media (who nowadays
doesn't stand afar from the former in terms of its “ethics” and
goals) and various groups united by common collective interest and
goals.
Feminism was and is,
first of all, an ethical and social movement, and secondly it doesn't
have any absolute timeless status and meaning in the sense that there
would not be any need for it in a society where the women and men
treated each other and acted as equal human beings, lived in the
organic harmony with the lucid understanding that neither men can
really realize their man's identity without women nor can women
without men, both genders being inseparable parts of one human – in
that situation the very notion of feminism would become just
irrelevant, non-existent and meaningless.
When we are talking about
“political” feminism, just like everything “political”, two
absolutely different things can be meant and mixed (sometimes
intentionally to “muddy the waters”):
1. The social movement that is strong enough to manifest itself, among other things, in the form of pressure that is felt by the existing political establishment. Thus feminism, which is not political in nature, can have political implications and exert pressure directly or collaterally on the political establishment. This feminism is not political in its nature and doesn't intrinsically pursue any direct political power as such. In fact, it pursues social and moral equality of men and women, and this pursuit may effect the political forces. We will call it simply “social feminism” to avoid confusion.
2. The truly political
feminism which is, as anything truly political, directly pursues
acquisition of or a gain in political power in some form or another,
to one degree or another by a person, by a group of persons, by a
class of persons united by common collective political interests. And
this feminism, to avoid any confusion with the previous case, we will
call simply “political feminism”.
My critical point in
simple terms is this: in the wave of the neo-feminism in many parts
of the West – especially in the Anglo-Saxon world – a very
significant slant is present nowadays towards the political feminism
as opposed to the social and ethical feminism, and I find little
moral justification for this slant and see some potentially serious
damage being done by the political “fake” feminism to the true
cause of never-ending development of harmonious, joyous and peaceful
society in countries like the US and Canada.
Manifestations of this
prevalence of political parasitic feminism over social feminism are
sometimes bad and sometimes ugly: one of the main deeply detrimental
consequences – and, most likely, goals – of it is building a wall
between men and women, pervasively using the antithetical
counterposition and polarization of the two halves of the humankind,
stirring class feud, distrust and suspicion between human beings of
opposite sexes. The political feminism preoccupies the so-called
“fair and independent democratic” media and different other
groups in business, in non-commercial organizations, political and
lobbyist groups and suchlike, the media being probably the most
prominent and cynical exploiter of it in its demagoguery.
There have already been
very thorough accounts and descriptions of the moral rot lying in the
heart of the neo-feminism, so lucidely captured in the documentary
“The Red Pill”
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mB13NV7rY0&t=6129s)
for those who want to acquaint themselves with the essence of the
problem in a condensed version. However even the aforementioned
documentary work doesn't delve into the true motives and goals of
neo-feminism, and the connection between those goals and the methods.
Nor do the critical works looking into the true essence of
neo-feminism explore enough the role of the mendacious media in all
of this – the media that has betrayed its socio-ethical democratic
duties in innumerable spheres, the providing of a mouthpiece and
advertisement for neo-feminist demagoguery being just one of them
(regarding the decay of the media democratic and social function in
the West see
https://dr-world.blogspot.com/2017/11/ongoing-destruction-of-western-media.html)
Lots of, probably most,
people, including me, acknowledge and enjoy the great conquests of
the social feminism of the past century and strive for the total
completion of its mission: social and moral equality and harmony of
the two halves of human beings. Achieving the final purpose of the
social feminism automatically implies the end of feminism: indeed,
there's no need for feminism when there are no more problems of
gender inequality, and the equality of genders is as a natural
condition in a normal society as the equality of those born on a
Thursday with those born on a Friday.
In other words, those who are really interested in the ethical and social purposes of feminism at the end of the day want to achieve conditions where the very word of feminism will be relegated to history books only. Feminism is not a purpose, feminism is just a name for movement and effort that rectify the historically created pathology of social and cultural inequality of genders and their social relationship.
Social feminism is just a
particular case of the general humanist moral principle of the
equality of the natural intrinsic value of human life, its dignity
and abilities on the collective level, regardless of natural
differences. Social feminism doesn't create any new moral values, it
just concentrates its effort on a particular type thereof.
The political
neo-feminism has basically displaced the true feminism, appropriating
(or, simply put, stealing) its name, perceived identity, intentions
and declared purpose, hence, in reality neo-feminism is a wolf in
sheep's clothing, and like many other inglorious political “viruses”
it uses the label and name of its victim (true feminism) to
infiltrate the host (in this case the host being the public mind),
playing on the stereotypes attached to the real good cause,
capitalizing on the perceived good intentions and purposes –
exploiting the stolen reputation and image of the real owner of the
cause (true feminism). It comes with little surprise that the real
luminaries, legends and founding figures of feminism, like Germaine
Greer or Margaret Atwood, have started to be viciously attacked and
smeared in press and social network sphere by the neo-feminism,
because those true owners of the cause threaten to unmask the
parasitic imposter. Indeed, some of those giants of feminism did
direct the gun of their pen and sword of their tongue at the
impersonator, and in less than no time did the neo-feminism
propaganda start to lash out in reply to those considered living
legends of true feminism, fuming with smear, derision and malice (by
way of some examples one can glance through
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/the-metoo-fury-has-spilled-over-into-a-feminist-war).
Under this pretense the
neo-feminism uses demagoguery, engineers and
augments public fears to realize its
political interests, using nothing else but relativistic “morals”
(or, more precisely, immorality) according to which the right cause
is the one that wins by any means, and the rest are wrong because
they are too weak and frightened to challenge the fairness of the
victory, its goal and the victory itself (just like Genghis Khan or
crusaders justified the mass murders and military terror with the
fact that those murders and terror actually succeeded and weren't
prevented).
It is not about those in
the right becoming deservedly the winners, but it is about the
winners becoming “in the right”, no matter at what cost. It is
not about the truth awarding victory, but it is about the victory
fettering and silencing the truth.
It is not surprising that
neo-feminism is saturated with almost fanatical triumphalism, which
even at the best of times is not helpful and is morally deleterious.
Even more deleterious this triumphalism is in the case of
neo-feminism which, as any movement exploiting fear and hate,
actually wages a war not just against a certain bad phenomenon and
mechanics behind it but against person or persons labelled as the
absolute enemy. The exceptional circumstance about neo-feminism is
that, unlike many other radical and fanatical movements, it declares
not just a person and not just a group of persons but half of mankind
– men as a class – as the enemy (of course, the apologists of
neo-feminism are in denial of it).
Some aspects and
mechanisms neo-feminism exploits to achieve its purposes have to be
studied and understood better in order to separate sheep from goats
or, more accurately, sheep from wolves in sheep's clothing.
THEFT OF TRUE CAUSE AND
AGENDA
Just like any
sophisticated political parasite, neo-feminism steals the agenda of
fighting for a noble true cause, and, of course, it has stolen it
from the true feminism. In Germany in 1930s Hitler's party stole the
agenda of fighting against communism and poverty, fighting for
economic well-being of the nation, which helped the ugly Nazi regime
to legitimize itself in the eyes of many people as a movement with
decent goals and values.
The inequality between
genders in personal and social relationships, status, rights and
freedoms is an iron-clad undisputed fact of history. This inequality
has been strongly in favour of men, and feminism was born as a
movement that fought for the progress to eliminate this problem –
the inequality.
The claim that a
particular movement is against something that is universally
recognized as bad (in this case the long history of women's position
of inequality) gives a better chance for the necessary legitimacy.
Of course, already at
this stage the subtle but important deviations can be noticed:
whereas the true feminism fights FOR gender equality in the
broad universal ethical context (within which humanity as as a whole
will gain from the equality of human life values and dignities,
justice, and harmony of relationship between the two halves if
humankind), neo-feminism puts more focus on fighting a WAR AGAINST
gender inequality (this toxic war-like or militant setting
already prepares the contextual stage for creating the label of enemy
down the road, personification of the enemy and further
radicalization based on “righteous” vengeance and retribution).
After this step
neo-feminism gradually and seamlessly shifts the focus towards more
radicalization: it transitions to fighting not just against
inequality as a social phenomenon formed in the course of history for
a number of anthropological reasons, but against a “free-willed
collective enemy” - a collective agent that represents an absolute
evil – and this collective hostile agent is none less than a
substantial part of the male half of the humankind who, ostensibly,
on the quiet or openly have continued to maliciously promote and
fight for that inequality up to the present day (and, by the way, if
the best dreams and wishes of neo-feminism were to be granted, this
situation should continue forever).
One collateral problem
that neo-feminism political technology encounters at this stage is
that the true feminism in the West has actually achieved a lot in
terms of equality, before neo-feminism has come on stage. Not only
that, but with the natural development of general education in the
Western society, exponentially growing connectivity of the people, an
increase in general perception of human life value, and change of
generations have naturally helped the equalization to progress based
on those foundations that were laid before by true feminism.
For example, while in
some professions, business structures, governmental positions etc
women are still underrepresented, the tendency is as positive as
unequivocal, and equalization continues. It is not a instantaneous
process of course, not least because only a couple of generations
before those strata were totally filled with men and it simply takes
time and generations, on the one hand, to establish the notion that
those professions/functions are as good and interesting for women as
for men, and, on the other hand, allow the new generation of women to
go naturally through all the steps that are technically needed to get
absorbed in those professions/functions.
Unfortunately the (not
so) modern institutions themselves, the continuity of human resource
and experience in the institutions are intrinsically not very fast in
their change – in almost every aspect of change – and the
historical process is measured in generations too, not in years.
Yet all these changes
have been occurring and continue to occur, and not due to the claimed
fake merits of neo-feminism, but because of the stolen achievements
of true feminism that provided the rails for that locomotive of new
culture and history to go forward.
This is an inconvenient
circumstance that could have weakened the legitimization of
neo-feminism. To eliminate this problem neo-feminism had to fabricate
a false context, an “augmented reality” in the public mind, from
which it would follow that the present situation with the gender
equality is almost as bad as it was half a century ago, or even
worse. This, in turn, requires warping the socio-ethical space
itself, or exploiting the already existing warp. Neo-feminism
didn't omit to use the existing ethical crisis and leverage it as
much as possible in several ways mentioned below.
In the
meantime there are so many ugly symptoms of the neo-feminism that a
book would be needed to list and describe all of them. One would
think that those neo-feminists, who cry on every corner that they
care about the disenfranchisement of women in the western developed
countries, would actually spend much more time drawing public
attention to what is going on with women, their rights and dignity in
those sweet bed-fellows of the Anglo-Saxon West like Saudi Arabia or
Pakistan – that's, of course, if those neo-feminists were true
feminists who consider the life value of all human beings supreme and
equal.
And in
the case of those countries (like Saudi Arabia) we are talking about
the real deprivation of women of the fundamental freedoms –
basically legalized, state-supported and culturally accepted
enslavement; we are talking about the real risks for woman's life
every day, we are talking about retaliation against women and
murdering of women in the form of, for example, so called “honor
killings” in their own family BY THEIR OWN FAMILY as a mass
phenomenon in broad daylight; we are talking about ubiquitous
practice of acid-splashing to mutilate women's faces in countries
like Pakistan – pretty widespread practice that in terms of its
exquisite monstrosity and cruelty can be matched only by the
atrocities and experiments of Nazi regime in Hitler's Germany against
large swathes of population.
One
would expect the ever-so-intrepid supporters of feminism in the big
media, like, for example, the British BBC, to talk and criticize and
urge action against those practices in those countries every day and
night!! Well, the reality couldn't be further from the truth –
nothing of that sort! (in the case of the BBC it is probably because
Pakistan or Saudi Arabia with all its ugly practices towards women
are big friends of the UK government, and the advocacy of the UK
state is of course is a much more important agenda and priority for
the “democratic independent and ever so pro-feminism” BBC than
protection and defence of millions of women).
Of
course if subjected to the true rational tests, neo-feminism loses
its sheep's clothing very quick, exposing its wolf's predatory
essence and absolute indifference to the real sufferings of women in
many regions on the planet.
This
is not surprising, because, of course, it has never been the true
purpose or intention of the neo-feminism to reduce the sufferings of
women and real disparity in rights. Rather the opposite is true:
neo-feminism is interested in perpetual never-ceasing problems
between the two halves of the humankind so that it can sponge and
vulturize on those problems in pursuit of its own political agenda,
money-lined pockets and raw political power.
Now let's
return to the question of how technically the neo-feminism (or
“pseudo-feminism – herein I those terms are used interchangeably)
achieves its inglorious political purposes while stealing the
identity and the past achievements from the true feminism. Let us try
(however emotionally difficult it might be) to put ourselves into the
shoes of those absolutely amoral and immoral ideologists who have
created in their ideological cauldrons and then spread this
neo-feminism through (and thanks to) the increasingly irresponsible
media and fanatic thoughtless supporters. How actually have they
managed to create this “mental virus” so effectively? What
chains, gears and pinions does this ugly “machine of latent civil
war between two genders” include to make it work? Let's try to go
through some nuts and bolts of this parasite:
First of
all, like any political radical ideology it is based on
radicalization of the audience (and, eventually, the society itself).
The radicalization, in its turn, is based on exploiting the
quasi-religious (or really religious) irrational belief in the
existence of the absolute evil, hence, the absolute ENEMY of the
people (Satan incarnate if you will – an emotional equivalent
thereof at least), it is based on creating, amplifying and then
exploiting the emotions of fear, hate and vengeance on a social
scale, directing them not at an idea or philosophy or phenomenon but
at a whole class(es) of people – THE ENEMY – seeking the
animalistic satisfaction in an attack on certain people (or even a
half of humankind) instead of an attack on ignorance.
Creating an
enemy of people, presenting mental pictures of sufferings made by the
enemy to exploit fear, stir up hate and vengeance is the first
pillar of the neo-feminism just like any other radical malicious
ideology (like hitlerism, stalinism, racism etc). Creating the enemy
requires dehumanizing the classes of people, depicting them as a
cartoon agent of “pure evil” that doesn't have any merits and
good intentions, that doesn't have any errors or imperfections, that
doesn't feel any human pain, but who does evil out of pure evil
intention for the sake of evil satisfaction – this is a very
important element of the technology of hate, and the fake feminism
has as much prowess at using this technology as many other radical
hate-and-fear-based radical ideologies.
The
second pillar is creation of a narrative that would start and
spread a social perversion: the latter is an absolutely necessary
condition for any successful radical ideology because perversion can
guarantee the sustainability, self-reproduction and robustness of the
virus of radicalism – it perpetuates it and makes it
self-reproducible. Perversion consists in creating special conditions
in which the outcome of the exploited hate and fear is such that on
the one hand it brings on some short-term psychological relief
for those “infected” with the virus of hate and fear and, on the
other hand, inevitably amplifies the same hate and fear in the
long-term, breeding even
more, not less, expectation of the same perceived threat
(source of fear) in future. It acts like a narcotic that brings the
necessary short-term relief to the addict at the same time creating
even more compulsive need of it in the longer term.
Perversion
creates a self-fulfilling prophesy whereby the provoked reaction
force is sustained and psychologically satisfied by the
ever-worsening results of that very force, and the “measures”
used to solve a “problem” amplify the problem, requiring even
more of the same “medicine”, yet the reverse of that vicious
spiral is “locked” because the victims of the perversion on the
one hand feel a short-term relief after each round of same measures
and on the other hand feel an unbearable psychological barrier to any
critical revision of the “measures” taken in the past because any
such revision would mean acknowledging one's own victimhood of one's
own actions, the sense of no personal control and insignificance,
lost opportunity over long periods of time, the sense of irreversible
loss, failure and guilt having existed for a very long time –
sometimes over periods comparable with one's lifetime – which in
the mind of the victims of the social perversion would mean that they
had been damned to be “bad people by mistake”.
The latter
presents an enormously difficult psychological barrier to overcome,
and it explains why it is so difficult for thousands of former
soldiers who served in wars to even consider or have some doubts that
that war was wrong, and, by the same token, it explains why it is so
easy for the military machine and the State politicians to create and
perpetuate the perversion of war and the virus of militarism in a
society and a country, for once started, it self-reproduces, often on
an increasing scale in generations.
The third
pillar of a sophisticated radical ideology is exploitation of
some universally embraced moral value(s), but of course not for the
sake of protecting that value but for the sake of the ideology's
moral legitimization, trustworthiness and distinction – this pillar
is the “sheep's clothing” part. But not any universally accepted
values are chosen for that, but some of those that appeal to public
sensibilities and arouse emotional reaction the most.
Thus such a
value can be (and is) used by neo-feminism as a poster child –
certain simple and easily understandable “sacred” values that
neo-feminism poses itself as the only custodian of but in fact
exploits those values as a shield, just like a cancerous tumour that
grows on the life-critical tissues and becomes protected from
surgical removal by the mere fact that it is hard to touch it without
risk to life.
Just as some
terrorist groups sometimes shield themselves with kidnapped innocent
people and children to make any attack on them very difficult and
seemingly unjustified so does neo-feminism use the “poster-child”
method, protecting itself from any rational criticism.
In the
process, of course, neo-feminism exploits ruthlessly a selected group
of real victims of gender inequality or gender-related crimes,
co-opting them and using them as a “live shield” and, at the same
time, as a legitimization of itself as the only custodian of the
victims – here “MeToo” part comes in.
Because the
exploited victims become double victims due to the artificially
induced collective perversion (see above “the second pillar”)
their exploitation by neo-feminism becomes very firm and
self-perpetuating: just like in the case of the so-called Stockholm
syndrome (where victims start to be protective of their own
kidnappers), even if faced with the evidence that their woes and
sufferings have been cold-bloodedly used by neo-feminism for the
political purposes, the exploited victims would tend to protect the
“parasite” that attached itself to their body as their host.
We will call
this pillar a “poster child”
The
fourth pillar is fake historical legitimization: neo-feminism
proclaims itself as the natural and only heir to the real feminism
and its cause. This act is basically the kidnapping of the name and
genesis and it gives the neo-feminism in the eyes of the public
historical legitimacy: it creates an impression that neo-feminism is
not just “a self-proclaimed ruler” that mushroomed out of
nothing, but that it is a legitimate inheritor or continuation of
something with a recognized and respected historical background.
Now, how are
those elements/mechanisms, in a step-by-step process, are practically
realized by the cold-blooded architects of the neo-feminism
“theology”?
The
first step creates the “poster-child”
and then uses it to create the first pillar (hate and vengeance).
Sometimes a historical opportunity or new conditions are needed for
this step and sometimes a technological change can be a necessary
catalyst (like sufficient development of the internet-based social
connectivity). In the case of the neo-feminism the best possible
opportunity was “MeToo” movement (or rather victims that started
that movement).
MeToo
wasn't intrinsically a feminist phenomenon at the beginning, it was
re-defined and hijacked by the neo-feminism pretty soon after. The
degree of cultural corruption in corporate business in general and,
let's take this pivotal example, in Hollywood in particular had been
pretty well-known for years before MeToo started (which doesn't, of
course, negate any justifications, rightful motivations and moral
necessity for that movement to be started).
One
well-known aspect of this corruption consists in the culture of
personal profiteering by exploiting the system, corporate positions
(and power of those position) with total disregard to any moral
values. In this context profiteering or “bribery” in the broadest
possible sense means any gains and benefits, including plenty of
those that cannot be directly expressed in monetary terms.
The
culture of normality of the exchange and commodification of such
benefits between persons along the verticals as well as parallels in
the corporate structure is another aspect of this corruption and it
infected not only those in the higher positions of power but also
many of those in the lower positions: the culture of exchange of the
benefits became a pretty accepted inter-corporate language, and
Hollywood – an especially rotten species – not surprisingly
played an especially prominent role in the catalyzing MeToo. It is
not surprising that sexual gratification became commodified in this
cultural environment a long time ago – so much so that, indeed,
such a term as “casting couch” entered the most authoritative
dictionaries of the English language, including the Oxford Dictionary
with the entry examples like: ‘she
was no stranger to the casting couch’
(see https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/casting_couch).
Indeed,
as things stand right now in Hollywood, there is little rational
doubt that if the majority of men in Hollywood were gay then the
attempts to use sexual gratification between men and men would go
rampant no lesser degree than in the present heterosexual situation.
It is
also of little doubt that this type of corruption, even if not in the
same degree, was and is supported from both sides: it is often not
the real physical force or duress under the pain of economic hardship
and such like that motivates some of the female participants to
accede to or even contribute to the establishment of this kind of
“sexual barter”, but rather it is things like a chance for an
excellent career with a million dollar compensations in future and
the temptation of reaching the glitz and glamour of the upper
echelons of the Hollywood world and stardom – some gains definitely
not belonging to the fundamental rights or life basic necessities or
even normal good dignified quality of life.
While the
corrupted and sexually perverted Hollywood culture of relationships
and corporate culture in general are a huge problem in its own right
(as well as the separate problem of socio-sexual perverted culture in
the US in general) and needs really serious study and complex
treatment, this problem has little to do with the inequality in
rights between genders or even discriminatory judgment or chauvinism
towards women in terms of considering the fundamental value of human
dignity and human life different for the two halves of the humankind
(rather the problem is to do with the general depreciation of the
human life value and dignity).
And, of
course, the core ideologists of neo-feminism know about it all too
well. In fact, fake feminism is inherently interested in letting this
totally perverted socio-sexual culture (especially strongly blooming
in the US) go on forever, because that gives fake feminism an
indefinite time and opportunity to parasitize it (just like Pentagon
and security agencies parasitize terrorism, bloating their budgets
and fortifying their political power, fighting it for appearances of
“good cause” and, at the same time, supporting, multiplying and
perpetuating it through providing political and military conditions
at twice the speed of fighting it).
In a next
step, the ideologists of the fake feminism exploited the degree of
publicity, furor and the advantage of the social network connectivity
in the 21st century to select and leverage the ugliest
cases of the bad sexual and corporate culture in the most prominent
cultural cesspits like Hollywood, and, at the same time hijack the
custody over the victims of those bad cases and mendaciously put the
flag of “feminism” over the “hijacked ship.”.
They
in a calculated focused way exploited the power of the social media
to the fullest to appeal to and capture into the orbit of their
propaganda thousands of female victims of bad corporate culture,
exploit their trauma (by “rubbing salt into it”) and the natural
propensity of victims to crave for moral compensation and relief.
At the
same time the neo-feminism created the aura of its moral supremacy
and unchallenged purity playing the role of the vociferous and only
defender of those victims with the true aim of building the moral
monopoly of voice on any social issues and problems that impact women
(and sometimes men alike, but that's beside the point for fake
feminism), however far those problems can lie from the actual field
of the true feminism.
Indeed,
suffice it to be a humanist to unequivocally deprecate the bad
treatments of women in the corporate culture and honestly look for a
rational remedy and solution to those problems, but of course it is
precisely the desire to appropriate the ownership – moral monopoly
– that motivated the fake feminism to “hijack” the custody of
the problems and their victims most of which at their root actually
have little to do with gender inequality to start with.
Exploiting
the trauma-induced reactions and natural thirst for relief of pain in
the victims, the fake feminism first consolidated those victims and
their support around itself, totally understanding that after
thousands of victims had “subscribed” - put the signatures of
loyalty – to the fake feminism custody later it would be extremely
hard psychologically for the same victims to repudiate their
“membership” of or “loyalty” to that parasite movement
because for a victim of bad treatment/experience it is much more
difficult than for an unaffected observer to rationally analyze the
situation and recognize later that actually the victimhood-induced
error of joining the treacherous bandwagon of fake feminism under the
influence of mendacious propaganda not only didn't make the reality
better but actually made the it worse.
Just as the
pernicious ignoble propaganda of militarism implants some specially
structured lies in the youth that later are very hard psychologically
to repudiate for the victims of those lies (so that wars could be
fought indefinitely and the virus of militarism can self-reproduce),
so does the pernicious propaganda of the neo-feminism implant its
lies through exploiting the suffering-induced natural bias of the
victims, so that later it is very hard to recognize the error and
repudiate the affiliation with and loyalty to fake feminism.
Indeed, in
this sense the female victims of bad treatment often end up being
double victims: first because of the bad treatment, and then because
their trauma was cynically exploited by the political-power-driven
parasitic entities like neo-feminism.
It is not
easy for a human being, no matter female or male, to recognize and
reconcile oneself with such a lack of control in front of the bad
forces of exploitation, but it is even more difficult to do so when a
connected community is formed with the loyalties and goals based on
deception. Thus, through the creation of perversion, the parasite of
the fake feminism perpetuates the loyalty of its main host – the
victimized supporters – and uses that loyalty as a “(im)moral”
shield and political ram, like an abused child that was hijacked by a
second abuser to be twice abused for the political purposes. The same
“poster child” is used to galvanize the media that even without
“help” nowadays seeks stories that have little to do with
reflection of reality and truth, and more to do with sensationalism
and vultirism.
The more the
victims of bad treatment support the “common cause” (hijacked and
presented by neo-feminism), the more of instantaneous psychological
relief the victims feel, and, at the same time, the more they do so
the more new cases of bad culture and bad treatment appear because,
if anything, the fake feminism is interested in the never-ending
problems and victims, NOT in real rational studies and recipes of how
to lower and eradicate the bad cultures and reduce the number of
victims.
In this
respect it is not different from, e.g., drug-control enforcement
agencies whose financial and political motivation has nothing to do
with eradication of drug abuse and drug smuggling, but, on the
contrary, it is caused by their drive to continue the never-ceasing
apparent fight with drugs and drug dealers wherefore everything is
done to perpetuate and, if possible, increase the presence of drugs,
drug abuse and drug smuggling.
Yet fake
feminism hijacking female victims and consolidating them around
itself as the “fake custodian” is not the end step of its
parasitic cycle. The control over the victims alone is not enough for
its purposes.
The next
step is the use of this moral monopoly of custody over the most
outstanding victims as a tool of universal moral legitimization of
the fake feminism in the eyes of the rest of the society. First, as
was mentioned, fake feminism captures the female victims of bad
cultures and treatments, wraps them around itself, and uses them as a
poster-child. Indeed, in the present climate of the “political
correctness” (a specious concept masking a massive attempt to shut
the freedom of speech and sow the fear in the hearts of everybody who
dares to address and critically study the issues and search for the
truths that can be felt as inconvenient or even painful for different
groups of people), it is mentally difficult (and not objectively
risk-free nowadays) to call into question the morality, intentions
and motives of an entity or person who appears to claim its unlimited
love, care and assistance towards a large group of weak, victimized
and defenceless people – the “poster-child”.
Unfortunately
in our (not-so) modern society people still carry those
quasi-religious (un)ethical stereotypes according to which declared
good intentions are hardly questionable, and for very many people it
is still hard to imagine the whole extent of the inhumane cynicism
and lies when it comes to the words and acts of political movements
and groups, not least neo-feminism ideologists.
After
hijacking the female victims and moulding them into the connected
community under the umbrella of “feminism” fake feminism uses the
female victims as a live shield against any criticism, however
rationally justified, not unlike the manner in which the ugly
terrorism uses hijacked victims as a live shield to attain its ugly
political ends (and, not to forget, terrorism by definition is driven
by the political purposes and motives).
Everyone who
dares to question the motives, intentions and morality of the fake
feminism is immediately at risk of being personally attacked and
falsely accused by fake feminism through throwing the mud of
mendacious allegations at any such critics to the effect that
everyone who dares to criticize it is actually against the true
victims and real feminism values. The rational criticism of fake
feminism at this stage may inevitably create some form of pain for
the said group of victims, but it is so only because neo-feminism
took special care before that to condition that group of victims as
an integral part of itself in such as a way where any criticism again
neo-feminism would be perceived as criticism and cold attack at the
victims – at least in the eyes of the victims themselves (just like
any fire aimed at kidnappers can be injure the innocent hostages
which were lined up by in such a way by the kidnappers as to expose
hostages maximally to any attempted fire and make the best live
shield out of them).
Now, after
the seeds of social perversion have been planted and grown by the
neo-feminism, and it has gained the monopolistic custody over the
real victims of either real sexism or just inhumane culture and
corruption, it starts to use this “poster-child” shield to
justify and protect its further expansion: at this stage the
neo-feminist task of spreading the virus of antagonism, polarization
and moral relativism, and gaining a good army of radicalized
“quasi-religious” supporters becomes an easy undertaking.
The
underlying false perverted dilemma used by neo-feminism to leverage
the conscription of new supporters can be presented in a simplified
form like this: “Are you for us or are you against those poor
victims? Are you for us or are you against the values of feminism
(that they mendaciously quote as their fake feminism property)? Are
you for us or do you hate women? Are you for us or are you sexist?”.
All these fast and hard methods have been tried and tested so many
times by the ugliest radical ideologies before.
The
calculated stirring of antagonism, polarization, hate and vengeance
against the declared imaginary “absolute enemy” (that in reality
can flexibly and conveniently be anyone who dares to say a word of
dissent from neo-feminism propaganda) appeal to some of not the best
instincts endowed upon us – humans – as a species by mother
nature through the previous millions of years of evolution. All of us
people have to one degree or another different accumulated stresses,
fears and discontents from time to time, and the venting of those
discontents in the form of vengeance towards a certain class of
people or persons is a tendency that can be inhibited only by the
rational education, rational study, collective problem-solving and
the forces of social human solidarity – those forces of rational
reason and social consciousness that the radical neo-feminism tries
to suppress and replace with the forces of blind confused animal
instincts alone (that in discussions are very often conveniently
called “feelings” or “hurt feelings”, often when it suits
inglorious political ends of those who refers to those hurt
feelings).
TRUE
FEMINISM AS A BRANCH OF HUMANISM CAN STOP NEO-FEMINISM VIRUS
Not thanks to but in
spite of the pernicious social harm brought on by the
war-seeking-and-wall-building fake feminism in the 21st
century, the conquests of the humanism, intrinsically aimed at the
recognition of the universal value of human life and the equality of
this value for all people of all genders, were impressive in the 20st
century and continued to develop in the 21st century
against the background of better education, better social
connectivity, change of generations with progressively better life
experience.
It is not unimaginable
that the current trajectory with time will lead to the total –
practically indistinguishable in terms of differences – equality of
rights between the two halves of the humankind in the developed world
and the US, even as measured by the outcomes in terms of the
male/female representation ratio in different organizations.
Here it is worthy of note
that the equality of outcome is one of the items most heavily
exploited by the fake feminism demagogues who like referring to the
outcome inequality in a number of cases as an ostensible sign of
discrimination, mendaciously refraining from mentioning lots of
cultural and socio-economic factors that naturally make the gender
representation equalization in different institutions not an
instantaneous but gradual process even under the conditions of total
equality of rights and attitudes, and, imaginably, even with the
preferential opportunities for females; nor do those demagogues
hasten to mention that the equality of genders in dignity, abilities
and value of life does not mean sameness, and it is nothing
else but a religious statement to say that the two genders
biologically – evolutionarily, if you like – should be absolutely
identically, to the same degree, naturally predisposed to any type of
physical and mental activity and, therefore, must needs be
represented in absolutely equal relative proportions. Using this
quasi-religious dogma as a ground to create preferential conditions
for candidates of one gender or the other for positions and jobs in
any institutions amounts to nothing else but to equally outright and
outrageous discrimination – but that is exactly what neo-feminism
promotes, and not without “success”. Well, at the end of the day
it is not surprising at all that the fruits coming from the
neo-feminist ideological garden actually serve and generate gender
discrimination: after all, this is one of the main features of
radical political ideologies – falsely declaring some good purpose
and appropriating some universal moral value and, at the same time,
doing everything possible to perpetuate the opposite of that purpose
and that value.
Yet even this total
gender equality in rights, positions and attitudes may not solve
probably a more topical problem in the 21st century
(especially in the US), namely the problem the RELATIONSHIP between
the two genders – the two halves of the humankind.
Indeed, it is not so
difficult to imagine a situation where in a particular institution or
community both sexes enjoy the same rights, the same numerical
representation at all levels, the same financial and other
institutional positions and treatment, yet, at the same time, both
genders do not trust each other, counterpose themselves one to the
other, tend to flock together around quasi-religious ideas of their
collective masculine and feminine identities existing separately from
each other in the atmosphere of a destructively competitive
antagonism, copying the worst natural predispositions and
inclinations of the opposite sex and neglecting the strong and
positive aspects.
This flies in the face of
the idea of humanism and one of its domains true feminism: the goal
of pulling down the wall between the two sexes and making the social
and economic life so much richer and more productive because of the
natural complementarity of the male and female halves of humanity.
This situation is not only possible but actually probable, taking
into account the never-ceasing effort of the fake feminism directed
precisely at augmenting and leveraging that kind of perverted
tendencies in the relationship between sexes on a social level.
In other words, the
triumph of the pure formal feminism (the true one but represented by
the formalism of its goals), though commendable, is not sufficient to
prevent really bad culture of relationship between the two sexes
whereby not the best but the worst aspects of both sexes are brought
forth and multiplied by each other.
Put even simpler, formal
feminism can prevent formal inequality, but it cannot teach the two
sexes to LOVE each other on a social scale, enjoy each other,
celebrate each other and see their respective reflection in the
collective mirrors of each other in their relationships on a social
scale.
One perverted myth, nay,
archetype, so much leveraged and exploited (but not invented) by the
fake feminism, is that the female and male identities are some
“God-given” static things that not only don't depend on the
connection and co-existence with the opposite sex, but actually
should be preserved by more isolation of sexes from each other. This
social toxic perversion of “otherness” and “antagonism” as
necessary preconditions for the gender identity, as opposed to
complementarity, is cultivated from the very childhood, and
predisposes possible toxic relationships on a social scale, lack of
inter-sexual empathy, impossibility to see the commonality of things
in both sexes and learn from each other in the areas of difference.
The statistics of male
sexual assaults, use of sex as a “means of payment” in the
corrupted and perverted culture in many institutions, jokes and
harassment, are really surrealistically high in the US in the 21st
century – one would need to go any further than looking at more
than 20 000 sexual assaults every year in the US military (e.g. see
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/05/02/despite-efforts-sexual-assaults-nearly-40-us-military.html),
bearing in mind that the statistics of men sexually assaulting men is
impressive too and on a steep uphill trend:
(https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/10/us/men-military-sexual-assault.html).
Denmark, a country that
boasts one of the best levels of gender equality on Earth, has less
than a boast-worthy rape culture
(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47470353),
and, at the same time, has an increase in the domestic and intimate
violence against men versus decline of that against women in relative
terms (https://eucpn.org/document/danish-policy-on-domestic-violence)
– that's a good example of how the triumph of pure feminism does
little to help society and its peace and prosperity.
Yet, probably this
situation where the frequency of intimate violence by women against
men becomes the same or higher than the opposite case is
'mission-accomplished' for neo-feminism, which never cared about
human life, dignity and the harmonization of gender relations in
society. The increase in the total amount of domestic violence and
broken lives and relations is no trouble at all for the fake feminism
ideology, as long as females learn and use this “art of violence
and lies” no worse, and preferably better, than men.
The statistics of
domestic violence in Canada have practically reached gender parity,
which doesn't make things better nor in terms of the total amount of
human suffering, nor in terms of the better happiness of the society
due to co-existence and mutual dependence of the two types of human
beings – male and female.
In the meantime there's
little doubt that the culture of using sex by some females as a
weapon of achieving practical benefits (be it career-related things,
or “gold-digging” etc) does exist as the other ugly side of the
same rotten coin, complementing and leveraging male cultural
perversions.
Indeed, it is a really
cruel irony that the ultimate gift of mother nature – intimacy that
is designed for love and unity between the two halves of humankind,
producing family and new life out of love – is used by humans as a
weapon of war, as a means of payment, as a subject of cynical jokes
and humiliation; and not a single doctrine alone about the formal
equality of the two genders in rights and freedoms is going to repair
one iota of this kind of perversions, except to equalize them on both
sides in relative terms and augment them in absolute terms (which is
pretty much the ultimate triumph of anti-human fake feminism).
All these problems have
nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination or lack of any
fundamental belief in equality of human rights, abilities and
dignity, or even lack of equality of outcome in terms of economic and
social representation of both sexes (the aforementioned Denmark has
reached very good results even in that field, yet it doesn't change
other sad gender-related realities in that country).
These problems are only
to do with a deep lack of understanding of the human life value,
therefrom ensuing lack of empathy, not least to the opposite sex
because of even less understanding of the human life value of the
opposite sex, both sexes being abundantly capable of falling into
this perversion and cynically exploiting each other.
Thus, it is not
surprising that the practical result of the fake feminism approach is
to only guarantee that all of these evils and flaws, that typically
and historically were done and were possible to be done mostly by
men, will be done by women to no lesser degree than by men, with the
total amount of suffering and destruction brought on society as high
as practically possible.
To solve the core problem
– the problem of lack of empathy, unity and harmony between the two
halves of humanity – any type of formal feminism is not sufficient
or even relevant: at best it will help to deter by the force of law –
only to a degree – the amount and magnitude of the consequences of
the bad culture of relations and social attitudes between the two
genders.
Solving this problem is
impossible without defeating the extremely harmful archetype (and lie
insofar as the fake feminism spreads and entrenches this archetype in
society even more) that gender identity is formed without the need of
existence of the opposite gender or in an antagonistic opposition to
the other gender, and that the normal gender identity is
“self-sufficient”, independent of the opposite gender and,
therefore, should be developed in isolation from or even in
antithetical opposition to the opposite gender.
In simple words, the
perverted mendacious archetype that makes women identify themselves
as the ones that are NOT men and the ones who are antagonistic to
men, and that makes men identify themselves as the ones that are the
opposite of women, should be destroyed.
Men cannot really feel
fully like men, understand and be
completely happy with their own manhood and male identity without
seeing their own social reflection in the mirror of the female part
of the society and feeling and recognizing the female part of their
own nature, and women cannot feel fully like women and understand and
be thoroughly happy with their womanhood without seeing their own
reflection in the mirror of the male part of the society and feeling
and recognizing the male part of their own nature.
Men can really feel
and be fully men only when they socially exist with women, and women
can really feel and be fully women only when they socially exist with
men. WE – MEN AND WOMEN – NEED EACH OTHER TO TOTALLY BE AND FEEL
WHO WE ARE AND OUR GENDERS. We cannot be separately men and
separately women separately from each other - in a “vacuum”. The
existence of women makes men and their social gender identity
fundamentally possible, and the existence of men makes women and
their social gender identity possible. The two genders are
totally entangled within one whole of humankind.
It is not the warped
archetype of antithetical insuperable difference that should be
placed as the cornerstone of social relationship of the two sexes,
but complementarity, learning from each other, mutual enrichment, in
which the male part of humanity strives to understand, recognize and
enjoy the lesser female part of their own character, and, vice-verse,
the female part of humanity tries to understand and develop the
lesser male part of their character, both sexes naturally always
having some part of their characters “borrowed” from the opposite
sex from the very birth as a “special gift of Nature”.
And all those things MUST
be inbuilt, as the cornerstone, in the very foundations of the
inter-gender relations already in early childhood because if they are
not, then no fountains of wisdom, falling on the deaf ears of the
ossified adults, no formal conclusions of the ethical philosophy,
human right treaties and lectures on feminism will be able to remove
self-perpetuating perversions in the relationship between the two
halves of humankind.
Only this paradigm can
set the ethical and aesthetic pillars not just for tolerant
coexistence but for prosperous development and collective social
happiness of the two halves of humanity (which, by the way, expresses
itself not only on the collective but also on personal and family
level).
The two sexes have to be
encouraged already in their childhood to love each other, form the
right positive expectations towards each other, learn from each
other, study each other, treasure each other and care about each
other based on the understanding that their very existence and their
normal gender identity (as opposed to the perverse one) are
critically dependent the opposite sex and on on experiencing their
gender reflection in the social mirror of their respective opposite
gender. If these normal and natural archetypes aren't created in
childhood then they will never be created during adolescence or in
adulthood.
It goes without saying
that this requires categorical opposition to “clustering” and
isolating female kids and make kids in their respective separate
environments – “compartments” - even if the walls of those
compartments aren't physical or administrative.
Not only that, but this
paradigm imperatively demands society to do everything to create
maximally mixed environment, where male kids are not just allowed but
actively encouraged to interact with and be involved in the
female environment and vice verse (which doesn't negate the need to
manage that mixed environment).
Unfortunately all this is
completely the opposite of what is going on now in reality (probably
with very rare exceptions seen in “the 22nd century
countries” like Finland).
Children are stuffed into
the “Procrustean bed” of artificially made perverted gender
identities from the very outset based on the toxic stereotype of
oppositeness and otherness in relation to the opposite sex in a whole
number of false attributes and rewarded behaviours, ranging from the
type of games played to the types of clothes worn, THEIR BODIES AND
THE BODIES OF THE OPPOSITE SEX, appearances and images, interests,
preferred environment etc etc etc.
Thus, first of all, the
creation of damage should be stopped before the above mentioned
improvement can be implemented, and that cessation of damage may
already automatically solve a lion's share of problems. Let kids
themselves develop the sense of what their gender is and how that
gender is inextricably connected to the opposite gender, what part of
their character actually reflects the characteristics of the opposite
sex.
A simple question can
illustrate the deplorable state of affairs due to the perverted
gender pictures enforced by society on children right from the start:
why is it so that in the 21st century
even in the so-called developed countries there women have so few
friends among men and men have so few friends among women? Why
indeed! Definitely not because
of the medieval rubbish to the effect that they are so different.
While in our age (not different from the medieval times in this
respect) may people perceive the rare occasion of normal and deep
friendship between a man and a woman as rather an exception and
paradox, actually it is the usual familiar reality that presents the
biggest paradox – the paradox of almost total absence of normal
friendship between men and women in society (indeed, one shouldn't be
the shrewdest sociologist to reasonably assume that such friendship
would really make so many problems related to lack of intersexual
empathy and sympathy and discrimination just non-existent).
From
the natural perspective it seems reasonable to expect the opposite
situation (more friendship between the opposite sexes than the same):
certain differences between men and women in their natural (not
culturally induced!) predispositions and characters impart more
mutual interest, enrichment and benefits of all kinds to the
friendship between individuals of opposite sexes in comparison with
the same.
Nor
is there any relevant explanation of this “self-created paradox”
coming from the childish drivels (or self-fulfilling prophesies)
along the lines of accusing the “almighty bad magician” force of
sexual attraction that is ostensibly so uncontrolled and feared as to
render any friendship between the opposite sexes impossible and
threaten the institution of family (indeed, there's not too much to
fear in that respect, since that very institution of family has been
half-destroyed already, and not by the friendship between men and
women but rather by the aforementioned lack thereof).
We, men and women, as
fundamentally same human beings, from the very beginning have the
same core values, with by far the most of our character being the
same, with only some aspects being different – and different
conditionally too.
In the overwhelming
majority of our interests and requirements we are initially the same,
and there doesn't need to be any special labour involved to “build
any bridges” for all this common shared ground unless, of course,
those bridges are artificially burned in kids by their own families
and institutions in our warped cultural environment.
It is not that boys
somehow have a natural predisposition to play with toy guns and
miniature soldiers and wear pants, and girls somehow have some innate
predisposition to play with dolls and wear longer hair and skirts,
but it is because society forces on them those false attributes,
roles and identities – the WALLS – simultaneously making them
feel ashamed or confused if they feel interest in what is
artificially segregated as behaviours, appearances and interests
ascribed (and prescribed!) to the opposite sex.
Society makes the two halves of new little humans different, so that later this wall of difference may be used to program the self-reproducing toxic antagonism between the two sexes, and “artificial identities” based on that very antagonism and antithetical perceptions.
Society makes the two halves of new little humans different, so that later this wall of difference may be used to program the self-reproducing toxic antagonism between the two sexes, and “artificial identities” based on that very antagonism and antithetical perceptions.
Society itself builds the ugly WALL between the sexes in kids – poisons them with the toxin of gender antagonism – and then, when they grow into ossified adults with these perverted archetypes, the same society laments through the mendacious mouth and the forked tongue of fake feminism over the problems in the relationship between the two sexes (predominantly lumping all the blame on only one sex too) – that very fake feminism that actually does everything in its power to leverage and augment the deleterious effects of those toxic stereotypes, and does it consciously for its own benefits.
Thus boys and girls in
their childhood should be grown in the conditions where they very
closely interact with each other and don't develop “artificial”
and “warped” gender-identities, but develop naturally their
identities that are defined not as something antagonistic to the
opposite sex, but something deeply complementary and existentially
dependent on the opposite sex.
Though there are some special differences and predispositions characteristic of belonging to one or the other of the two sexes, even those differences and predispositions in one sex are not totally unconditional and “incomprehensible” for the other sex. In other words, even if women have some inclinations and characteristics that “intrinsically belong” to “female nature”, it doesn't mean that men don't have any ability to understand, empathize with, be curious about and enriched with those inclinations and characteristics, and find a reflection of those female characteristics in their own feminine part of their character.
Any boy coming into this
world and growing, initially has a certain feminine part of his
character – it is not as if there is some “metaphysical” part
of female nature totally separated from him forever as if a parallel
universe cut off by the event horizon (nor are any
girls foreign to even most profound
elements of the masculine nature). But it is our
semi-barbarian society, not Mother Nature, that depicts and makes the
sexes separated as if they are parallel universes (with
the self-fulling perverted prophesy of them indeed becoming parallel
universes).
Naturally kids aren't
(and why should they be?) “gender-monolith”
in their character, but boys have more masculine nature and a lesser
(but none the less important for
that!) part of feminine nature, and girls have more feminine
and a lesser part of
masculine nature. Those “lesser parts”
are the most important bridges to the opposite sex insofar
as the character may be gender-specific. Roughly speaking man
is not (and why should he be?) supposed to
feel as some imaginary mythical “100%
man”, but he is supposed to feel as, figuratively
speaking, “75% man” and “25%” woman (of course these
numbers here are not for quantitative claims but for the qualitative
illustration of the idea), and vice-versa.
Thus initially it is not
only allowed by nature, but it is in the normal course of nature that
girls and boys are and should be naturally very curious towards each
other and towards those qualities and parts of nature of each other
which each of the two sexes has as the minor part.
There is nothing
fundamentally preventing boys from getting interested in playing with
dolls with girls, and girls from taking interest in with what we
“branded” (figuratively and literally speaking on the brains of
our sons) as male toys.
Yet it is society that
makes boys feel abnormal or even ashamed
regarding that minor feminine part of their
nature and character, crippling “the free
gifts of nature”in its children
and then crippling its throat shouting from the TV screens the front
pages of the press about the scandals and atrocious culture of the
relationship between these two isolated –
“parallel” – gender universes that were separated and
stolen from each other from the outset.
Instead of allowing men to become internally even “more of a man” through taking pride in and developing their minor feminine part of nature within the commonly created and mutually enriching mixed gender environment, they are from the very outset are reproached (explicitly or implicitly) for having the traits of character that are rather feminine in nature (the “macho” cult is a special extreme in the manifestation of that theft of the feminine part from men in their childhood, where boys are taught that some “girl's weaknesses” are a shame to male identity).
But if society will
recognize the fundamental complimentary, interdependence and
oneness of the two genders, and if
society will seriously acknowledge that men
cannot really be totally “fully realized men” without women, and
women cannot be totally women without men and without mutual
development of their minor parts of character corresponding to the
opposite sex, then most of those problems, that are so mightily
parasitized by fake feminism, will
naturally vanish.
WE CANNOT BE REALLY MEN
AND WOMEN WITHOUT EACH OTHER – we are parts of each other and we
contain parts of each other in ourselves.
If we stop fighting
mother nature, and we stop this
self-perpetuating vicious cycle of cooking and
warping gender-identities then the
holistic, harmonious and mutually-enriching relationship between the
two genders will become
equally as possible as natural.
As is often the case, a
great part of the solution to the problem mostly lies not in
what needs to be done, but in what must not
be done, for it is often not the lack of
solutions to the problems but the creation
of the problems in the first place that
brings about deplorable outcomes.
INTIMACY CULTURE
Within
the aforementioned context it is still impossible to omit a special,
critically important aspect, namely INTIMACY and the ATTITUDE TO
BODY. The former – intimacy – is what in Western culture has been
replaced with “sex”, totally separating
it from love and all the rest of intersexual interactions as if it is
something absolutely isolated that bears no relation to all other
manifestations of the intersexual relationships, perceptions and
their culture.
We still live in the
semi-barbarian and semi-infantile society
(and barbarianism and infantilism often go hand in
hand) where for many parents it is still much easier to
explain to their little sons in their childhood how wars are fought
and how guns work and how they kill people, than how a new life is
conceived out of love (and, ideally, for the sake of love), how the
birth of new life takes place, and what the ultimate gifts of nature
and triumphs of billions of years of evolution are that make it
possible for girls to develop, bring into the world and nurture a new
life made “out of love”.
Indeed, we still live
in a society and in a world
where many parents feel much more confident and comfortable
explaining to their little kids what war and death are than what love
and birth of new life are.
In many ways, the
society is still much more afraid of LOVE AND LIFE, then of WAR AND
DEATH.
We still live in a
barbarian infantile society where probably as much as 50% of jokes
and humour – be it on the level of everyday social interactions or
institutionalized TV shows, books etc – are tied to the theme of
sex and those parts of human body that mother nature developed
through millions of years of evolution to make love, new life and
even those very two genders possible to exist.
It is amazing how many
jokes can be seen and heard already in the kindergarten, let alone
school, in relation to the opposite sex, the body of the opposite
sex. Well, if already in the childhood the disrespectful, cynical
and joking attitude is cultivated towards the opposite sex, the body
of the opposite sex, the intimacy and the adult intimate
relationship, how can society seriously hope that the institution of
marriage and family is going to be good, firm and happy, and
that the leprosy of sexual crimes, assaults and commodification of
sex in institutions is going anywhere any time soon?
Not only that, but the
very nature of these jokes, and even a goodly part
of the idiomatic English language is of a
really bad nature that presents a mixture of contempt, fear of
weakness, lack of control and exposure, denigration and defiance to
the most profound force of nature inbuilt in our bodies and minds.
That very force and those same mental and
bodily mechanisms responsible for love, family, birth of new life and
social cohesion are still actually feared
and ridiculed (out of fear),
not embraced and celebrated. That subprime
creative force is perversely
used not to create a more empathetic, hence, happier and more
peaceful society, gluing the two genders, but as a weapon, a
self-inflicted curse, a monetized tool in
political and corporate world, and this status-quo is equally
accepted and supported by both sexes.
We still live in a
society that mendaciously prides itself on ostensibly recognizing and
even celebrating the revealing truths discovered by the genius of
Sigmund Freud, whereas in fact the latter wouldn't know whether to
laugh or cry (or both) at how in substance all those truths were
perverted, hypocritically put on a pedestal
only to avoid putting them into effect for the benefit of the
society.
Is it
those thousands of sexual assaults at the American Military Academies
that are the ultimate fruit of the
so-called sexual revolution and emancipation?! Is it this massive
avalanche of porn and pornographic culture on the Internet that shows
the triumph of the sexual revolution in the West, especially in the
Anglo-West? Is it the ever-increasing amount of sex-tourism and
sex-trafficking/slavery of immigrants and immigrant teenagers that is
supposed to demonstrate the glory of the sexual liberation and
enlightenment in America?! Or is it because Freud's teaching was
wrong? Well, it seems to be the opposite:
it is because Freud's teaching has never been really put into work,
and. instead, a grotesque chimera, an ugly hybrid has been built
based on some cherry-picked Freudian recipes combined with the old
Christian archetypes when it comes to the questions of intimacy and
fundamental attitude towards body.
Indeed, in this
situation, it would be surprising NOT to see those cultural
perversions en mass that manifest themselves in the aforementioned
sexual assaults, using sex as a bargaining or political tool, a coin
for exchange of services etc in the corrupt social and institutional
cultures. In both these paragraphs the term “sex” indeed
is more than justified by the context as opposed to the term
“intimacy”.
When girls and boys are
in their early childhood they can't understand neither the monumental
doctrines of humanist philosophers, nor the history and meaning of
human rights, nor the essence of the true
feminism teachings and such. Hence when
boys and girls have already grown up into adults
who can formally understand those doctrines and teachings,
none of all this corpus of humanist literature
and knowledge is going to change their attitude towards each other
and their own sex, because by this
point of time it is too late.
No true
feminism movement (let alone fake
feminism), no legal bounds, no institutionalized propaganda are able
to change those deepest archetypes about the value (or rather lack
thereof) of human life and its dignity and beauty, including the
value of the life of the opposite sex. Once the fundamental attitudes
and expectations towards the opposite sex and the body of the
opposite sex have been mangled in the early childhood, no political
noise, philosophical treaties or fear-based teeth of law are going to
change or “rewire” this “perversely hardwired mental program”.
All these archetypes are
formed in early childhood in the existing cultural environment, and
the attitude to body, including the body of the opposite sex, plays a
fundamental role in this process – definitely it is not the works
of Freud or Voltaire that are the source of love or hate or fear
towards the opposite sex and its
body.
The opposite is also
true: if since the dawn of their childhood
most children had been conditioned (or
rather allowed) to develop deeply positive and, actually, natural,
expectations from and attitudes towards the
opposite sex, so that boys and girls would see each other and each
other's bodies as the very precious source of happiness and joy of
their life and, even more importantly, their future adult life, then
we probably would neither need nor see any feminism (which would not
upset true feminists, by the way), let alone the fake feminism.
For that to happen it is
not enough just to provide the usual social and physical exposure of
the kids of opposite sexes to each other,
but it is imperative to make such exposure, not least in their
minds, the prevailing norm, so much so that children's
friendships and social interactions with the opposite sex should be
more encouraged and praised than those between the same sexes. It
requires reviewing and turning upside down
what we see as “natural” and accepting
that it is not natural for girls to cluster with girls and boys
cluster with boys to a higher degree and over longer times than
sharing time together in their childhood.
It is not enough just to
provide to kids the dry knowledge and education about “sex” as
some inevitable corollary or aspect of adult life, but it is
imperative to provide the knowledge about the intimate relationship
(as opposed to “sex” which in the perversion of the Western
culture became the same as or substitute for
intimacy) and FORM DEEPLY POSITIVE ATTITUDES AND EXPECTATIONS
AND OPTIMISM in kids in regard to the sacred role of intimacy in
their future life and the sacred role of the body of their
own and the opposite sex in their their future life and
their future happiness.
Kids in their childhood
start to develop the concept of value of human life and of their own
life through, among other important things,
their own body, parental interaction
and caress, and if there is an ugly gap between what kids
understand and perceive as love and the
dry information - “education” - about “sex” (instead of
intimacy which is not something fundamentally different from the
intimacy between kids and their parents) then the chances are
perverted stereotypes will be developed about the opposite sex, its
body and intimate relationship with it.
Thus it is not enough
just to teach kids about “sex”, but it is imperative to teach
them about the intimacy as a form of caress and expression of love,
so that the very ethical and aesthetic context of this critically
important education is based on cultivating in kids the vision
of intimacy as the form of
respecting, loving and delivering caress to the opposite sex through
the intimate interaction, and not as some totally
isolated form or “parallel reality” to the caress that they –
kids – experience in their normal interactions with parents and
each other.
if neo-feminism was
really interested in mitigation and elimination of the amount of
suffering and pain
created by the bad perverted culture of the
relationship between the two halves of the humankind, it would really
study rationally the roots of the problem
and be busy with destroying the walls between the two sexes instead
of erecting them.
But, of course, as was
mentioned before, neo-feminism is doing the complete opposite because
its cynical “cannibalistic” objective is the opposite: triggering
and flaming the never ending “civil war” between sisters and
brothers, sons and mothers, wives and husbands, against which
background its faked
nice intentions would give them more raw
political power in society and its institutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment