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