A Brief History of Feminism and Why It Has Always Been Wrong

Ostensibly launched in order to advance the “rights” (but not responsibilities) of women, Feminism has endeavored to be all things to all women in terms of a universal, one-size-fits-all ideology. However in terms of the achievements by its self-proclaimed adherents, the hype doesn’t match the facts. To speak to a run-of-the-mill feminist is to learn that so long as “men do bad things,” Feminism is necessary. Apparently, the actions of women are beyond reproach while meanwhile the state is virtually infallible in its continued necessity to expand and swallow resources in order to enforce an “equality” of slavery that can never be achieved until all private property and ambition is abolished.

However, to hear history from Feminists, women have always been systematically oppressed by government and a secret cabal known as “The Patriarchy,” which together conspire to keep women from achievement in the social and political realms and from happiness itself. This narrative ignores all oppression of men, which is the norm for all but a tiny percentage. It also oddly ignores the role of religion while not owning its apparently anti-religious stance so as to ensure that all women—even religious ones—adopt the “Feminism” mantle.

How ironic that as a result of “Elevatorgate” Atheism itself seems to be suffering from an ideological rift between feminist atheists and non-feminist atheists. It would seem that Social Marxism and Gender Politics have not effectively provided a values system to fill the void of receding religions. It would be dreadfully ironic if the backlash toward three “waves” of Feminism turned out to be regressive “fundamentalist” religions.

Feminism in the United States has always been about owning the value of children while requiring more and more state services to ensure that only men are burdened with fiscal responsibility toward those children. Feminism may well have arisen originally as a reaction to a surplus of spinsters and widows (as a result of wars and other travails which reduced the population of men) with industrialist funds giving it traction for purposes of lowering the value of labor itself.

The apparent learned helplessness of early feminists was not, contrary to popular rhetoric, due to some sort of deficit of legal or social power. However, propaganda has told feminists that all pain and suffering of women is the result of a deliberate agenda on the part of “Patriarchy,” to stifle their own agency. Wealthy and privileged feminists have always exploited the real straits of women in poverty to somehow show that women comprise a single “oppressed” class. No one, however, bothers to fight for the rights of poor men because the bedrock of Western civilization depends on a steady stream of desperate men willing to exert their productivity for the vain hope of “success” or “love” or “happiness.” Under marriage and monogamy laws, such a man was pretty-well guaranteed a wife—or at least to be able to afford a prostitute. Those days are over of course.

The result of each “wave” of feminism has had women devolving into immature, helpless creatures, with no agency of their own while meanwhile demanding “opportunity” without merit. The modern western woman of today would be thought pathetic and helpless by the average woman of our not-so-distant past, who had far greater literacy, could write more fluently, perform more mathematics, make soap, sew her own clothes and that of her entire family, raise and butcher livestock, etc.

Personally, I think that all of the “equality” advocates are whistling Dixie. Biology counts for a whole lot. In societies which require a whole lot of children, women are recruited to be happy little baby makers provided that someone is taking care of them during their periods of vulnerability. In societies which don’t require quite so many children, opening up careers and educational opportunities to women tends to do the trick; however, the welfare state and the paternity suit cancel out that ambition for the poorest of them by providing a guaranteed meal ticket as the reward for irresponsible reproduction.

What kind of world will we have if men are discouraged from being masculine and strong? What if the only reinforcement of masculine characteristics comes from the “trad con” variety of narcissism in our narcissistic age? Meanwhile, more and more “men” are deciding to be a “woman” in one fashion or another because there is a perceived advantage to having no expectations put upon “women” except as sex objects, which, is not a bad gig if you can find a “sex object” collector. As masculinity is further demonized however, a lot of these new “women” are in for a rude awakening.

Meanwhile, America’s children are being raised by television and people who don’t actually care about them and love them. How is that a good thing for anyone but war mongers and slave mongers who want a steady stream of throwaway children and alienated adults to exploit? Will this tide turn before our global economy is completely in the sewer?

Back before feminism, spinsters had a few designated jobs available to them which are not so different from what most women choose as careers today. A woman who truly wanted to get out of the box also more than likely would find ways to do just exactly what she wanted to do even more than most men had such flexibility thanks to the chivalrous and protective nature of the majority of men. In fact, with all the feminism noise, I believe that women today are actually less self-reliant than women of the early Twentieth Century before there was even universal suffrage nor my personal bugaboo: universal compulsory education.

Try as I might, I am not convinced that there was ever any positive result of feminism. The list of things which feminists take credit for is nothing more than revisionist history. Feminism can’t take credit for access to birth control (an invention of men forged legally by men), equal opportunity (supply and demand), property rights (marriage was designed legally to protect women and ensure their sustenance even as their reproductive value drops), or even social attitudes which require a feedback loop of real-life experience rather than merely rhetoric. The Suffragette Movement can take credit for universal voting rights but that “right” is dubious at best when women don’t comprise a special-interest as a gender even if perhaps widows and spinsters do. There is no real unity of purpose or needs among the vast breadth of womanhood and therefore to pretend otherwise has only political and economic motivations. When it comes to women’s suffrage, the federal income tax was just that motivation. Women were being “empowered” to become taxpayers and thereby “deserved” a say.

If alcohol taxes funded the Civil War, Prohibition required another source of revenue. In other words, Bluenoses bartered away their opportunities for economic independence for the “right” to prohibit others to drink. This should have resulted in womens’ suffrage being repealed the moment that Prohibition was repealed.

Meanwhile, I fail to see the benefit of “equality” for anyone least of all children. This stance sets me apart from the men’s human rights activists and other antifeminist “equalists”. I do not see how lowering the consumer buying power and real wages of all persons while meanwhile lowering employment standards makes life better for anyone. I do not see how demonizing mostly male entrepreneurs and small business owners increases opportunities or quality of life for anyone. I do not see what is so bad about being “sexually harassed” by one’s husband who just happens to be “the boss” to the rest of the world but who depends on creatures within his domain to allow him to sleep unmolested; therefore, what sort of fool would abuse them? I do not find it demeaning to celebrate each other’s strengths as human beings and to be “useful” to ones who we love.

I have come to believe that none of our “benefits” of civilization amount to a hill of beans but rather are merely instruments of enslavement. I don’t even believe that food itself has improved. Quite the contrary. Not even textiles, wood, or oils match the quality of yesteryear.

In my view, the worst possible thing to happen to civilization was lowering infant and maternal mortality because wars which devastated the male population continued apace. This led to a demographic imbalance which, oddly, came up with a “solution” which is to oppress adult men! I can see how it happened though, which was through emotional appeals to men which implied that if there were only more women in the population, then everyone would have a higher likelihood of “getting lucky!” What a racket! It turns out “more women” added to any equation doesn’t make anything “better” including Mr. Timid’s “chances.” It was all a lie designed to create more Mr. Timids and more termagants for purposes of increasing powers of the state and large employers.

I am no civic engineer but it seems to me that universal suffrage has been a disaster and “the feminine principle” in action. Furthermore, I fail to see what is so great about working for a faceless corporation rather than say having one’s own farm, business, or livelihood of one’s choice. I see no “security” in corporate or government slavery.

I’m just fine being “oppressed” thanks and no thanks to feminism for any of my supposed “rights.” No thanks to “the sisterhood” for anything really. You tar me and all women by association.

19 thoughts on “A Brief History of Feminism and Why It Has Always Been Wrong

  1. I think this post reverberates robustly to the sound of nails being hit squarely on the head, and is indeed a happy thing to read.
    My thanks to Caprizchka.

  2. In the admittedly very unlikely event that you may not already discovered it, may I recommend ‘Radical Wind’. It’s an immensely entertaining hoot a minute.
    You couldn’t make it up – but then there’s no need to.
    They already have.
    Whoops, do excuse me – just a bit of Radical Wind there!

    • Trigger alert. I’m turned on by “domestication of women by men.” I feel so ashamed for having these dark desires when I could be a lesbian separatist being domesticated by bull dykes, which is better, so I’ve heard, because women are ever so much nicer.

    • “As said in the previous post, we don’t have the same access to knowledge as men, especially knowledge and consciousness of patriarchy.” Wow. I always knew that a penis is an antenna which connects one to the patriarchy network. Cool! How does it work?

      • Ah, it’s easy. You just flop it out, whip it into a state of angry tumescence and point it towards the sky. Within seconds, one is replete with demonic, oppressive, abusive urges and a sense of connectedness to like-minded antenna owners. You should get one. I don’t know what the two ovoid things beneath are for, though. Data storage, I think.

    • It means whatever I say it means. 🙂 It’s a bastardization of the Latin root (Capri) with the affectionate diminutive Russian suffix except with a hard “Z” instead of the usual “schka”. I love goats. As for the pronunciation, I have no idea how to Romanize it, but it’s three syllables, and you’ll want to roll the R and affect a Russian accent as best a New England WASP can manage.

      • Thanks. Now I got it but I have to move my lips while reading it. My Russian and rolling Rs are sort of non-existent. Practicing saying it was fun.

        It caught my eye in some comment section where you posted your link. I dropped in and read your archives, quite interesting. Obviously, I’ve come back for more.

        Your case against feminism is iron clad, and I couldn’t agree more.

  3. Your voice is strong and welcome. Pondering the differences between the typical male and typical female (keeping in mind the ‘normal distribution’ of characteristics), a woman will want the man to take care of the ‘icky’ things: dispose of spiders and insects in the home; clean the water trap in the bathroom of accumulated hair and gunk; lubricate the squeaking things in the household, like door hinges, etc. There seems to be a disconnect between their insistence on the ‘fact’ of their being self-sufficient, yet will wheedle the man (in subtle ways) to do the icky and other unpleasant stuff. I don’t mind doing them, I feel good about my abilities in this realm. It’s the disconnect between the woman’s rational and non-rational sensibilities which (no longer) astound(s) me. It does no good, and some harm, to point this out.

    • A different sort of division of labor exists in my household which, in my view, is more like the relationship between two men: Lord and serf. Specifically, the hierarchy is roundly understood between us in terms of our different skills and expertise. This is in contrast to the lives of many women who refuse to acknowledge the actual power dynamics and then wonder why their relationships are unsatisfying. I know this, because they confess to me while seeking knowledge of how to make their own relationships better.

      Women who use their whiles or delicate sensibilities whether real or contrived to gain power fall into two categories: conscious or unconscious. In my world, conscious power-exchange is healthier than unconscious or semi-conscious. It also makes for a happier relationship. Meanwhile, in my observation in the West, female dominance in the domestic and social sphere is the norm. Does this make everyone happier? Sometimes but not always. Imposing female domestic and sexual dominance as some sort of pseudo-religious standard is the legacy of centuries of gynocentrism. If the parties are happy, then, no problem. If they’re not then resentment piles up and the whole of society pays.

      Feigned helplessness or disgust is a standard method of gaining power in a relationship. The more helplessness a person feels the more justified in using manipulation to gain control over their environment. The classic “delicate flower” of female archetypes is about as helpless as a Black Widow spider.

      Squeamishness is yet another tactic.

      On the other hand, some women genuinely want their men to feel appreciated for their courage, strength, etc. and wholly depend on it. It’s that little voice in the gut which determines whether the power exchange is healthy and enriching or oppressive or abusive. I don’t believe that a single standard can or should exist albeit it is the powerful dynamics of intimacy which whets the appetite of megalomaniacs of all sorts.

      Axel makes me do all sorts of things for him but it is the pleasing him rather than the act itself that has more importance to me. I know he would never put me in more danger than he can handle and meanwhile increases my own sense of capability. Of course, I was never a “delicate flower” myself and further, it is more important to me to impress Axel than some random woman, my peers, my family, etc. It’s all about priorities.

      The “pedestal” whether it is to preserve a woman’s delicacy or to celebrate a man’s magnetism and power is a real thing that in my view needs to be acknowledged. Personally, I find the pedestal not to my liking and am grateful that Axel figuratively welcomes it. Power is not always as it seems to the observer for I feel very powerful when I am transcending my fears.

      • I appreciate your response and comments. I used to try to see the ancient survival value in women being squeamish, etc., and think I found some–but I’ve forgotten what I came up with. But ancient conditions no longer prevail, at least in most Western societies. Now is when we can exercise that portion of our brain which is new and unique (among all other animals, as far as we know or believe) to rationalize away the necessity for reacting in ancient ways.

      • For what it’s worth, my exposure to Native American, Indian, Chinese, and various Central and South American women tells me that squeamishness among women is not universal.

    • I expected that to be controversial but the fact that it leads to both a demographic imbalance and effective devolution of the species is evident in the results. Another odd demographic twist not particularly related to feminism is extended lifespan among the wealthy or well-insured. In my country, it is not unusual to see people my age completely overcome with chronic illnesses while their parents are not only going strong but are practically in peak health. A surplus of poor children are supposed to grow up and be so productive as to support us and our parents with social security as well as subsidize the insurance industry. That’s slavery!

      The artificial life extension of only some demographics leads to all sorts of strange dystopian constructs. Good intentions are often the root of some of the worst effects.

      Meanwhile, I far prefer responsible use of birth control to the notion of infant mortality. However, infanticide has a long history of use in all cultures including Western ones when resources are stretched. It’s not a nice thing to think about but sexual activity has all sorts of risks. However, I am conflicted in terms of the role of religions in policing sexuality while simultaneously fetishizing childbirth and virginity. I suppose it is foolish to hope that realistic conversations about demographic balance will appear in my lifetime. Rather, the norm is to demonize all the religions and governments of antiquity that engaged in ritual sacrifice as a means of demographic balancing as being somehow more barbaric than our own. I think that “ritual sacrifice” is exactly what occurs albeit under the guise of “patriotism” or “external enemy”. The demographic sacrificed is young men, particularly poor or minority men.

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