RSS

Feminism Is in the Air

09 Apr

Dalrock specifically singles out another comment to his post: What, Me Worry?

Anon Reader,
You made a similar comment before and I had neglected to bookmark it. I haven’t made the same mistake this time. Brendan wrote a while back that my challenge to the accepted morality of serial monogamy was “the most subversive idea that has come out of this generally excellent blog”. I take that as very high praise, and in that spirit I’ll make the same statement about your comment above [shown below]. The point itself is very simple, painfully simple once you hear it. Just like a fish doesn’t know it is wet, everyone raised in this feminist culture will have adopted more or less feminist ideas. The real problem isn’t necessarily the ideas themselves; they either stand or fall on their own merits. The problem is the ideas are not challenged because we aren’t aware of them; in fact we even struggle to identify them once they are pointed out.

“Any person or institution not explicitly anti-feminist will drift towards tacit support of feminism. Because feminism is in the air we breathe and the water we drink.”

Anonymous Reader writes:

It occurs to me once again to point out that all humans in the industrialized West are submerged in feminism. We all are immersed in feminist notions. These ideas are so pervasive, many people do not even notice them, they just “are”. How many of us reflexively assume that men and women are substantially the same, except women can have babies and men cannot? Even though we know, intellectually, that women’s brain structure differs from men in some significant ways, even though we know that women’s hormonal mix in the bloodstream is significantly different from men, even though we know that women on average are shorter and weaker physically than men, we have an unconscious assumption that, well, y’know, we’re all pretty much the same. And that premise is easy to demolish. Yet it is still quite wide spread.

Take a more complex one, such as “women should receive equal education to men”. Not “women should have an equal opportunity to education as men”, but that women’s education and men’s education should be equal – equal number of BA’s, equal number of MBA’s, equal number of PhD’s, equal number of BS’s, and so forth. This flows from the first premise. But if the first premise can be demolished, this one can be also. However this makes people uneasy, especially parents in the Upper Middle Class [UMC] – because it implies that it’s more important for sons to obtain useful credentials that they can then take with them into the world, than for daughters to obtain the same credentials. Worse yet, it implies that in some areas of academic inquiry, women will either be fewer in number, or will be equal in number but notably inferior in quality. We can’t bear this thouht, and UMC parents will reject it. Yet it flows from the study of the structure of the brain itself via MRI and PET, as well as from generations of standardized IQ testing. This premise is still generally accepted, even though we can already see the results playing out in the ever expanding number of women with useless college degrees – degrees that basically are attendance awards that never required any academic rigor.

I posit the following: the default position for people in the US is “tacit feminism”. That is, accepting feminist notions without bothering to examine them. The act of examining them critically will lead to some degree of rejection. But this leads to a hypothesis: a person who is not actively anti feminist is going to become tacitly pro-feminist.

The default track for children of the UMC is to go to a college – the men, to earn a degree that will enable them to enter the work force, the women to meet a man suitable for marriage, i.e. to earn her MRS degree. This is nothing new; it was the standard for a lot of state colleges in the 1950′s, 1960′s and into the 1970′s. But because of unconscious, unexamined acceptance of feminist idea #2 above, now we see the UMC demanding more for their daughters. They must complete a basic degree, and then an advanced one, prior to marriage. This doesn’t make them better mothers, but it does “keep up with the Jones’s”, i.e. the UMC parents are freed from having to explain why their daughter only has a BA in Spanish and now is a mere hausfrau. The UMC are therefore tacit feminists, but they can claim anti-feminism because their daughters don’t generally have abortions (or at least the parents don’t know if they do), do marry and do produce at least two grand children. And compared to the freak show that is 3rd wave feminism, especially sex-positive, this picture looks pretty “traditional”. But it’s in the tradition of 1968…

Putting on the glasses / taking the red pill means seeing the world differently. It also means looking inside your own head, and seeing what in there is not true. The value of Game is how it overturns falsehoods about women and men. This has long reaching effects.

Any person or institution not explicitly anti-feminist will drift towards tacit support of feminism. Because feminism is in the air we breathe and the water we drink.

Edit:
Just to be clear on citations, Twenty pointed out that on April 1, 2012 he said:

Conquest’s Second Law: “Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.”
Twenty’s Twenty-Second Law: “Any organization not explicitly sexist sooner or later becomes feminist.”

Then Anonymous Reader left a reply comment very similar to that which he expanded upon and subsequently used at Dalrock’s, which is blockquoted above.

About these ads
 
40 Comments

Posted by on April 9, 2012 in churchianity, culture, divorce, religion

 

40 responses to “Feminism Is in the Air

  1. Will S.

    April 9, 2012 at 9:14 am

    Sounds familiar… (They’re all right, of course – and connected… Feminism is statist and leftist.)

     
  2. CL

    April 9, 2012 at 9:56 am

    I was pretty pissed off for a while when I realised how much my life’s path was determined by being immersed in a culture I could sense was all wrong without being able to define exactly what it was. It took discovering the manosphere to give me those definitions and confirm that what I could sense but not articulate was not something horribly wrong with me. It’s a bit like living with a PD person where you start to think it’s yourself who is nuts, but your reactions are simply those of a sane individual in an insane situation, and it takes a little while to decompress once out of the situation (or while digesting the red pill, which causes temporary dispepsia).

     
  3. 7man

    April 9, 2012 at 10:00 am

    Anonymous Reader had the best dissection of the escalation of a blogospheric conflagration conflict in this additional comment:

    Dalrock, it’s a paraphrase of something I read years ago; “Any institution that is not explicitly opposed to Marxism will be taken over by Marxists”. Or something like that. The latest go-round just brought the idea to the forefront. i still think seeing serial monogamy as the preferred form of promiscuity for women is the more important insight.

    Now with regard to the “latest go round”, let’s recall that we are debating, sometimes heatedly, with jtsharpe because he’s taken up the cause of the Darwii. Why are the Darwii here? In response to a series of articles that tie back to the Catholic woman blogger. And what got her worked up?

    She accidentally tripped over the androsphere, and found angry men. Angry men who won’t take orders from women, who won’t be manipulated by women, who won’t be shamed by women. So she basically exhibited both fear and anger. Why?

    Why does the sight of men who are refusing to take orders, to be manipulated, to be shamed by women elicit this response? I recall the prominent RC woman blogger whom I won’t name having a similar conniption fit over the Spearhead. Fear and anger. In both cases, the women all but ordered other men to “do something”. That “something” basically boils down to “make those men behave so that they don’t scare me”.

    Perhaps women have grown used to controlling men – sometimes via fits of temper, sometimes via tears, sometimes via withholding sexual favors, and sometimes by calling in White Knighting men who will do the dirty work for them. And so the spectacle of men who are angry about women, and who won’t stop being angry, and who do not respond to the standard female methods of manipulation starting with shaming…is indeed alarming. Because a man who can’t be controlled is just plain dangerous to a woman.

    We can expect more of this. Not less, more. More conservative feminist women will trip over the androsphere, and will read things that they don’t like, and they’ll be alarmed, and when their favorite White Knights can’t make the bad men just shut up, that will be even more alarming. The sensible response to all of this can be found at grerp’s blog, and some few others. Alas, I do not expect that many women to be as sensible. Not so long as the herd is still immersed in feminism.

    But each time some conservative feminist like Duffy trips over the androsphere, we get another opportunity for education, and to put ideas like “hypergamy” into circulation. We get to sharpen arguments even more. We get to pare down ideas to the essence. More men and women get exposed to the glasses / red pill.

    These events are opportunities, not problems. We just need to stay cool, stay loose, and keep putting the truth up where it can be seen.

     
  4. Will S.

    April 9, 2012 at 10:00 am

    @ CL: “I was pretty pissed off for a while when I realised how much my life’s path was determined by being immersed in a culture I could sense was all wrong without being able to define exactly what it was. It took discovering the manosphere to give me those definitions and confirm that what I could sense but not articulate was not something horribly wrong with me.”

    Indeed; fish have no idea what water is, after all…

    “It’s a bit like living with a PD person where you start to think it’s yourself who is nuts, but your reactions are simply those of a sane individual in an insane situation, and it takes a little while to decompress once out of the situation (or while digesting the red pill, which causes temporary dispepsia).”

    What are you abbreviating as ‘PD’?

    7man: PD = Personality Disordered

    Will S.: Thanks 7man!

     
  5. Will S.

    April 9, 2012 at 10:04 am

    @ 7man: Indeed. It’s amazing how the mere existence of men who aren’t their husbands but who aren’t under women’s thumbs, makes women who dominate their men feel threatened…

     
  6. Cranberry

    April 9, 2012 at 10:06 am

    I was thinking along these lines the other day. To a woman who is waking up to feminist lies, a lot of what Dalrock and other M-sphere bloggers write about is caustic, finger pointing, blaming, shaming, and saying women are worthless. Truth hurts but it is hard to hear at first, and the first instinct is to go on the defensive. It is human nature to do this, and the instinct is greatly bolstered by a society which says no one is ever guilty of anything, ever – always someone or something else’s fault.

    But once you get over it, you realize that there are places where you, as a woman, went wrong, and that is the first step in seeing how to set things right, for your love life, your sanity, and your future well-being. But something along the way did set your feet on a path of unhappiness and bad behavior: the lies of feminism/socialism and expectations to go against your own nature. Social and educational programming are powerful, and women, needing leadership, easily fall under the spell of a message which says they don’t need men, or babies to be happy, and only need an education, a career, and grrl power! to get by in life. Such is the Great Lie, the modern apple being forced down our throats by the powerful and irresistible serpent of materialism and secularism.

    Well, not irresistible for some, and as is becoming apparent, the gloss is wearing off the promises, showing their emptiness to many who are turning away from them.

     
  7. 7man

    April 9, 2012 at 10:08 am

    The above comment I blockquoted from Anonymous Reader reveals how strong the feminist ideas are embedded and how the Christian White Knights ride into the rescue when one woman takes issue with what men say.

    Most times men give up and go along since a woman’s tirade often goes on and on and then others join the debate to prevent the truth from being understood. Yes, feminist ideas are that well accepted and traditional Christian men can usually be counted on to act as White Knights, so princess doesn’t cry when the mirror is held up to her face.

     
  8. CL

    April 9, 2012 at 10:22 am

    it’s a paraphrase of something I read years ago; “Any institution that is not explicitly opposed to Marxism will be taken over by Marxists”.

    Feminism is a branch of cultural Marxism, so the same really does apply. AR’s analysis of the kerfuffles reminds me of my favourite John Stuart Mill quote, from “On Liberty”:

    “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

     
  9. Dalrock

    April 9, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Thanks for the linkage.

    The quality thinking of so many of the commenters in the manosphere is truly astounding. Little do they know I’m only blogging to trick them into sharing their insight with me in the comments section.

     
  10. 7man

    April 9, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    There are many women (and some men) that hesitate to wade into the comments at Dalrock’s. It can be a bit much.

    CL told me that when she first encountered the manosphere at The Spearhead, she had quite a few questions, which she left as comments, and then the men answered with patience and sincerity. Back then the manosphere tone was less harsh, but CL also wanted to learn rather than refute. (Defiant women have bad experiences in the manosphere.)

    By pulling out exceptional comments from Dalrock’s blog into a side discussion, those considering swallowing the “red pill” can get their questions answered and reflect on individual truths without becoming overwhelmed.

    Often those encountering the manosphere find themselves drinking from a fire hose when they intended to sip and taste the ideas as if from a water fountain.

     
  11. Anon^2

    April 9, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    Is it legally possible to run a non-feminist institution in most cases? Even religious schools with a theology of male headship can’t pay men more than women without breaking the law. (EEOC vs. Fremont Christian School)

    Feminism is far worse than just being in the air. It’s in the legal codes, the personnel policies and the curriculum requirements! All these laws add up to create a de facto ban on non-feminist institutions and deprive non-feminists of any base for shared action.

     
  12. Carnivore

    April 9, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    It’s more than just feminism, although feminism is a large part of it. Our entire culture is steeped in depravity and decay. Spend a little time here:

    http://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/00-Cultural_Index.htm

    Although a Catholic site, you don’t have to read the religious articles. The issues raised might seem quaint or anachronistic or nitpicking, but think about it. Forty or 50 years ago, what is seen as out of place today was completely normal then. While many of the issues discussed are minor, add them all up and you have a major difference.

     
  13. Sunshine

    April 10, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    Oh, thank you for the posting this! It really clarified what I have been noticing…feminism is an insidious poison that has infected even conservative Christian men. My husband’s mother was a home-maker for most of his youth. I was a feminist with a degree from a prestigious univeristy and going into grad school when we got married, which he was fine with until he met Jesus and we had children, at which point he ordered me to leave my career to care for my family (and I am beyond grateful to him for that). However, recently I told him that I do not think our daughters should attend university, and he was horrified at the suggestion. He went on about them needing to be educated and to have choices, and so on. He asked me if I wanted them to grow up only to be housewives; I said yes, and he was just shocked. In just one generation, what has been the normal sphere for women for time immemorial is now seen even by conservative Christian men as a pursuit that is almost shameful for their daughters.

     
  14. Will S.

    April 10, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    @ Sunshine: The problem is, parents always want whatever they feel would be best for their children, which is right and proper of course, except, sometimes, what might be best for their children as individuals, may not be what is best for society, as a whole. I think higher education for young women, falls under such a category, or at least, it can.

     
  15. Sunshine

    April 10, 2012 at 10:23 pm

    Yes, I think you are correct that this may be the motivation, at least in my husband’s case, but I am not convinced that university is best for our, or anyone’s, daughters. Do we really need to shell out tens of thousands of dollars for them to be exposed to the Vagina Monologues? I do not think all these choices really make women happy and fulfilled anyway; I believe that is one of the biggest lies of feminism. What our daughters need to learn in order to have peaceful lives is how to obey – their parents now, their husbands in the future, and God always.

     
  16. Will S.

    April 10, 2012 at 10:34 pm

    True, it may be more that parents THINK they’re not being good parents if they “don’t give them all the opportunities out there”, when in fact, sheltering them from exposure to some of the worst societal ills that they may be exposed to at places of higher education, may actually be the best thing parents can do, for their kids.

     
  17. electricangel1978

    April 10, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    @Will,

    I have worked in higher ed. I cannot recommend it for most women who want a family.

    Ask yourself this: what is the University? It was a place created to train young men. It is absurd to think that this cloistered place, DESIGNED FOR THE NEEDS OF YOUNG MEN, could just be taken lock, stock, and barrel, and used for women, too. That’s feminist/equalist thinking, Amigo. Women and men are complementary, not equal, and the ideal form of higher education for women is HIGHLY unlikely to be the EXACT SAME shape as that created over centuries for young men.

    Now the interesting question we need to ask, and answer, is: what would woman-friendly higher education be?

     
  18. Will S.

    April 10, 2012 at 11:21 pm

    @ EA: Agreed.

    I explored the question of women and higher education some time back:

    http://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/wolves-in-sheeps-clothing-domestic-science-household-science-home-economics/

     
  19. electricangel1978

    April 10, 2012 at 11:53 pm

    Your point in the article is well-taken, Will. Sadly, I think we DO need home economics classes now, due to the loss of the homemaking arts. I recommend the book “Home Comforts” as a great overall guide to homemaking; Cheryl writes about how she learned from her two grandmothers the craft of home management. She is now a lawyer, and shows how complex the management task of the home really can be. And no one is doing it!

    We should publicize if any reactionaries have sponsored a “take our daughters into the kitchen” day to be held the same day as the RIDICULOUS “take our daughters to work” day. They’ve already got the memo on “careers.” They need to read the one on family.

     
  20. Will S.

    April 11, 2012 at 12:08 am

    “Take our daughters into the kitchen” – ha! I like that. Now that would be counter-revolutionary. :)

     
  21. empathologicalism

    April 11, 2012 at 6:46 am

    If feminism dovetails with leftist state centric ideology (and I fully agree it does), a conundrum rises to the surface.

    In a loosely analogous kind of cognitive dissonance to tradcom white knights, and how incongruous that is with MRM ideals, how is it that there are so incredibly many militant seeming liberal men who espouse MRM ideals?

    And should that maybe be pointed out that they are at odds with themselves, that supporting leftest ideals is a skid greaser for feminism.

    Anyone notice that?

     
  22. Will S.

    April 11, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    @ Empath: Yes, I have oft been perplexed by that. All I can think is, they make unprincipled exceptions when it comes to themselves.

     
  23. empathologicalism

    April 12, 2012 at 6:08 am

    Unprincipled exceptions….good term. It really starts to grate on me when I read the leftest screeds for some of the most, oh what say, *popular* MRA’s

     
  24. Will S.

    April 12, 2012 at 8:09 am

    Liberals are all about unprincipled exceptions…

     
  25. Svar

    April 12, 2012 at 9:23 am

    Agreed, Empath. I lost all sympathy for the MRA when I realized that it was basically the male-version of feminism. Screw that.

    Btw, is it just me, or have I seen you at ChristianForums? If so, you are a far, far more patient man than I. The women there…. Are logically retarded.

     
  26. Svar

    April 12, 2012 at 9:33 am

    I remember an incident over at Dalrock’s where a former male feminist(lol) railed against me for being sexist…. over at Dalrock’s. The “man” was of the sort who hates women because they’re not like men but I’m a horrible sexist in that I think women are women and men are men.

    If these are the shits that are supposed to be our allies, count me out.

     
  27. Will S.

    April 12, 2012 at 9:44 am

    BTW, I didn’t originate that term:

    https://www.google.ca/search?q=Unprincipled+exceptions

     
  28. Sunshine

    April 13, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    I thought this post at thinkinghousewife was apropos to what we have been discussing here:

    http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/04/why-rosens-remark-was-significant/#more-37303

     
  29. Bwana Simba

    April 14, 2012 at 12:16 am

    Conquest’s Second Law: “Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.”
    Twenty’s Twenty-Second Law: “Any organization not explicitly sexist sooner or later becomes feminist.”

    QFT. That said, I hate to call anything sexist because old school chauvinism has been proven correct after all.

     
  30. samsonsjawbone

    April 14, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    The quality thinking of so many of the commenters in the manosphere is truly astounding. Little do they know I’m only blogging to trick them into sharing their insight with me in the comments section.

    Ha! Yes, right on.

    Sorry I ain’t been around much, men; I’m super-busy with my real family, who I love very much. Go out and make your own families!

     
  31. Will S.

    April 14, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    Make our own? But without a wife, how do you do that? ;)

     
  32. Svar

    April 14, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    Roll your own?

    I’m 18, Samson. Maybe in 6 years if I’m lucky to find a decent Catholic girl.

     
  33. samsonsjawbone

    April 14, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    1) Finding a wife was implied. :p

    2) You were 17 last I heard! Getting closer.

     
  34. Svar

    April 14, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    And in a couple of months I’ll be 19. You must have heard about my age from a while back.

     
  35. samsonsjawbone

    April 14, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    Well, see, you’ll be married off in no time, boy! ;)

     
  36. Svar

    April 14, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    Haha, I hope so!

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 318 other followers