A good article by Anus.com which touches on many logical strands of thought. It criticises individualism, Capitalism, democracy and leftism; all of which are part of the malaise and all of which coalesce with feminism.


Not surprisingly, one of the hottest topics in modern politics today is the issue of feminism. Feminism is a vague term that describes the kind of cultural and political outlook, that claims women in Western civilization have been - and still are - suppressed by a patriarchical structure, meaning women systematically are discriminated on a gender bias. That's where the ideology diverges into a number of subgroups; group A believing women should be more like men, group B believing women should be more like women, and group C believing there are no gender differences, hence we should all be Humans with a big H and therefore dissolve all social roles, like the traditional family is based upon.

Feminism is a tricky leftist standpoint for many of the modern politicians, because it means there is a large segment in society that claims to be discriminated - and as we all know, "discrimination" (along with "racism") is one of the most horrible things on the planet. As such, even though liberal parties are far from the leftist attitude of sympathizing with victims in society, they are all forced to at least agree on the term and integrate some feminist issues into their political framework. They hire a few known "experts" on the field and begin finding economic imbalances between how much a man and a woman makes on a working place. Of course, they find plenty.

Feminism, like many other trendy political outlooks today, is at core a liberal ideology that wants to increase the individualization process and reach a more individual-centred society. A "free" and "liberated" woman today, is a person that spreads her legs in the magazines, dare to take on men in soap operas on TV, whines as soon as someone makes $2 less than another man, and believes the family-based society is a product of discrimination and gender roles. This is the psychology that reveals the typical leftist method: identification with victims.

Feminists are worried about women being "discriminated" in our society, because they inherently believe women are weaker than men. They are afraid of inequality, and see gender differences as an expression of such inequality, thus attacking society for creating these so-called "social differences." This is close to the leftist attitude to racial differences: there are no races - only social groups divide us into who we are. Where long years of genetic studies, revealing IQ differences and resistance against different kinds of medicines between races, come into play, is never mentioned. The insecure individual keeps on blaming nature for being racist.

First of all, let us study some basic differences between man and woman. Have you ever been to a school for children? If so, you will already there notice a bunch of things that separate the boy from the girl. Typically, girls gather in groups with other girls and try to establish friendship by comparing the things they have in common: their parents' names, their dolls, their favourite colours etc. They are esoteric by nature and compare feelings and opinions. They bond through what makes them equal.

Boys are for most part extrovert: they climb in trees to see who can reach the highest point, they play football to see which team is the best, they wrestle and fight to see who's the strongest. Boys are by nature competitive and create friendship from an inherent inequality. This is why two boys that might have a fight one morning, the next day might be best friends: they compare each other's skills in order to see if they will match for similar games. If they do, they begin liking each other.

Perhaps the most interesting thing here to note, is not just the fact that these are biological expressions that in general never have changed from the first day man set foot on this planet (although cultural and social differences have varied from time to time), but how boys and girls interplay and find common ground on what makes them unequal. Girls are drawn to the wild boys that challenge others as well as themselves, while boys are drawn to the more passionate and esoteric side of girls. They complement each other, and this also in part explains how a girl can make a boy go from being a fighter to take care of babies and study family recipes: man and woman are two sides of the human nature as a whole, and are made to come together and create beauty.

This is why feminists fool themselves when they claim they want to stop the gender conflicts; they've started them, because they refuse to accept the fact that men and women are inherently different, and need to be confident in their own gender personality, before they can come together and live happily. The feminist, as with all leftists, want to deconstruct all biological, social, cultural, political, and economical differences between individuals, so that they can re-unite under the lowest common denominator. And that denominator is in all Western societies today - you guessed it - money.

Money is a perfect symbol for equality between people, because it can be applied to any culture and any social group, as long as they're willing to accept the basics of democratic industrial-capitalism. As long as you work, you're OK. This is an attempt to try to escape all differences between individuals and creating a grey mass of consumers without identity. This is where the feminism comes into play: like much else, this is a consumer trick for lost women to gather and shout for "equality."

Ever seen those "modern" types of women on TV, telling how many men they've screwed over and how they are the centres of the universe? That's the "new" and "hip" woman, the feminist, who is fighting against "oppression." Typically, she buys the latest clothes, aim for the highest work post in a famous company, votes (of course), and think housewives are morons that should be out and making money. Babies are only a burden - now it's time for women to step up and take over the society. Large corporations realize the situation and begin marketing women; "time to make some cash."


I remember reading an ancient Greek play by Aristophanes, Lysistrate, that made a satire out of a surprisingly modern topic. In this play, the women took over the city and declared world peace and liberation, just like modern feminists today cry over war scenes and want to be able to have sex with their entire neighbourhood, before they feel somewhat satisfied with their life. What stroked me was how this imbalance created suffering for both men and women: men saw their entire political system being dumbed down to a passive state, where hedonist knee-jerking and collaboration with enemy lands were being part of the "new society." Women longed for their men and babies again, and didn't want to go out in war to create this "world peace," they were lost and could not find a stable lifestyle to set out for them. The city was in complete chaos and only the "feminist leader," Lysistrate - in many ways more man than woman in appearance, firmly believed in her convictions.

See also:

Anti-Democratic Action
Anus.com Topics
1Party4All.co.uk on Feminism



More...