I am pleased to present an historical political perspective of feminism from a man—a stranger—with whom I’ve had the privilege of corresponding. He represents a decidedly Politically Incorrect Sexuality comparable to my own (albeit with some “sectarian” differences) and integrates his personal worldview within an historical encapsulation of feminism as a political movement. Whereas Fifty Shades of Grey has practically brought BDSM mainstream, he hails from a significantly maligned and marginalized faction thereof with emphasis on “Power Exchange” rather than toys and fetishes. This marginalization is a dubious feminist “achievement” while meanwhile women are buying into “BDSM” in droves.
A popular male feminist writer has “outed” himself as being a collector of “FemDom porn”—http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/06/13/stealing-me-for-daddys-money-hurts-me-too-and-other-nuggets-of-wisdom-from-some-dudes-mra-memes
This admission did not inspire outcry amongst his feminist readership and commenters. Therefore, in the name of Equality, I present here the opposite perspective.
The following is an excerpt of my guest blogger’s response to the topic, “From Feminism to Fascism” introduced by another individual. The reason for the anonymity of all parties will become apparent with the political sensitivity of the topic. This excerpt is reproduced by permission.
I believe that our sexuality is one of the ways that we as people are being controlled via propaganda and behavioral conditioning and therefore shining a little sunlight on “forbidden” topics is a way of making us all a bit more hypnosis-resistant. –Caprizchka
Guest Blogger: TPEPervertDad
I view “the world” in two parts: The part within My Family/ Household, which I (perceive/ believe) I have both control and ownership of… And the part outside of My Family/ Household… Which I (perceive/ believe) I do not have either control or ownership of.
Western Civilization-based Feminists typically divide the chronological growth and philosophical “maturation” of their movement into three broad periods, or “waves” (not counting pre-feminist history); namely:
- Pre-Feminism: Circa Antiquity to around Circa AD1800 (+/-)
- “First Wave” (My Term: Classical) Feminism: Circa AD1800 to Circa AD1940-1960
- “Second Wave” (My Term: Modern) Feminism: Circa AD1940-1960 to AD1990
- “Third Wave” (My Term: Post-Modern) Feminism: Circa AD1990 to Present
<START ASIDE>
As an aside… The above time frames appear to have a close chronological relationship to ideologically-relevant, male-led, gender-agnostic (anti-)liberty movements. Specifically, the “change for women” movements appear to lag behind key “change for people (in general)” movements by about 20 years (+/-). To wit (presuming My above dates are correct):
- Strong (statist), non-representative government, without legal restraint, and strong figurehead (autocracy/ pure monarchy – “Rule of One“): Circa Antiquity to around Circa AD1701 (passage of the Act of Settlement after the Glorious Revolution in England, formally solidifying British Parliament as having supreme, undisputed power over the English monarchy – a Western Civilization first. This appears to mark “the beginning of the end” of the Pre-Feminism era (dies 100 years after “Rule of One” ends).)
- Strong (statist), partially representative government, without legal restraint, and weak figurehead (e.g., Constitutional Monarchy – “Rule of Elites“): Circa AD1701 (legal supremacy of English Parliament begins) to Circa AD1783 (Treaty of Paris between the United States of America and Great Britain is signed, ending the Revolutionary War, and marking the formal beginning of the end of the British Empire. “First Wave” Feminism begins ~15-20 years after “Rule of Elites” ends.)
- Weak (populist), partially representative government, with legal restraint, and weak figurehead (e.g., Constitutional Republic – “Rule of Law“): Circa AD1789 (Treaty of Paris formally solidifies Articles of Confederation as being the supreme law of the United States (“law over Man or Men”) – a Western Civ first) to Circa AD1913 (U.S. Federal Reserve Act and 16th Amendment to the Constitution were passed, enabling both de facto removal of legal restraints upon U.S. Federal Government power and theoretically unlimited growth of the state – “Second Wave” feminism begins ~25 years after “Rule of Law” ends.)
- Strong (statist), falsely representative government, without legal restraint, and strong figurehead (e.g., communism, collectivism, socialism, democracy – “Rule by Cabal Masquerading as Mob Rule“): Circa 1871 (first socialist government briefly formed in Paris) to AD1913(Rise of US. Federal State)-AD1917 (Russian October Revolution) to Present (Current governments in most Western Countries (including the US) claim to have ruling parties in power whose actions are representative of their citizens’ best interest… Yet endemically corrupt/ perverse systems of incentives result in “confluences of interest”, which has effectively led to de facto rule by shadow governments of elites, who leverage the government’s monopoly on the legal use of (the threat of) lethal force to extract life, liberty, and property from the government’s ignorant, deceived, and/or compliant subjects. Simply put, this is “repression by deception”. Key events in the early 90’s (end of Cold War, EU Maastrict Treaty, post-Tianamen reforms, Deng Xiaoping’s Southern Tour in CCP and subsequent reforms) had no counter-effect; indeed, the megatrend has been strengthened. “Third Wave” feminism begins to rise ~3-5 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall (beginning of the end of Proletarian Internationalism (“World Communist Revolution” ideology).)
<END ASIDE>
But I digress…
In short…
- (01) I do not agree with either modern or post-modern feminism in any context;
- (02) I do agree with classical feminism only within the context of the world outside of My Family/ Household;
- (03) I do not agree with any form of feminism (including classical feminism) within the context of the world inside of (within) My Family/ Household (i.e., Pre-Feminism ideology applies)
My only reason for #(02) above (and I state the following because I also self-identify as a Male Supremacist…) is that, with regards to the world outside of My Family/ Household, I am a fervent ideological libertarian (with little “ell”), and “default to liberty and non-interference” for all of those I perceive I do not own and control, provided that their voluntary/ willful actions do not attempt to take away My life, liberty, or property (including My Family/ Household) through force, theft, or fraud. (e.g., they should have the right/ liberty to do as they wish… Provided they don’t mess with Me or My Stuff.) This means that… As much as I am ideologically opposed to the concept of “gender equality”, “uni-sex societies”, “gender justice”, etc… I refuse to use the police power of the state to force any restrictive ideologies that I have upon those whom I do not have any personal responsibility or authority over (including ownership of/ control over)… Just I would not directly force, under My personal direct power, My ideologies onto anyone I did not already own/ control beforehand (via prior mutual consent, of course (per “consensual non-consent”-oriented TPE doctrine).
caprizchka 