How Feminism causes War, Rape and Violence...... while she goes .... shopping.

 

 

 

 

 

War on Men

Quotes from feminists; what is said about men. The lines are drawn 500,000 feminist MATRIARCHAL texts versus 2 and WE are the dominant ones in a 'patriarchy'?

Google University or Public library systems for something similar. That is masculist/feminist, or the name for politically aware gender consciousness and its associated gender ideologies. No radical conservative-capitaliste masculist entries either, are there? Or any 'other' point of view-so much for postmodern 'sensitivity' to the -what is it again?-'other'.

Where are the Patriarchal Texts?

What is Patriarchy

Why is feminisms view of Patriarchy so toxic? Matriarchy only benign?

History Herstory

Bible patriarchy as code? In Engels's Victorian imagination, itself a product exploitative of patriarchal sexual practices, sexuality was so odious to women that he reasoned they would prefer ownership by one man rather than "use" by some communal horde. All this implies the existence of an onerous and coercive sexuality instead of a free one: patriarchy, in fact." (Millet: Sexual Politics)

This assumption by Engels is surely ignorant of the sex drive and lusts of women; Kate Millet by foregrounding this conflated account of Engels views references inadvertently to a personal 'use' of her take on the Feminine Mystique whereby women are assumed to be in an essentialist category of their own-with innocent, pre-pubescent sexuality, or none at all. All sugar and spice and all things nice, moral and properly correct. And she has found a man to say it for her: this is the feminist academic method in a nutshell; take anything, anything at all-by one man-and use it to describe all men. At least in an assumptive pre-emptive manner; no messy business of actually canvasing all shades of opinion. The man does not even have to be explicitly supporting the view advanced on his behalf. Her borrowed argument relies on an extremely odious and matronising Victorianism of her own 'use' that belies what she is trying to say in her feeble points. Thus at the end she can rush at her cheap-unestablished-claim that patriarchy is an 'onerous and coercive sexuality'. If it is coercive, where is the coercion? She has not established that. And as for a free sexuality of left wing Marxist fame: we all know now where that led; Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, Herpes, Crabs, Aids, H.I.V. Kaposi Sarcoma Carcinoma, Thrush, Infertility, madness and high divorce rates. Marx is utterly defeated by actual real human emotions.

Below wo/men are somehow to suppose, by looking across to another species and by analogy (both fairly sophisticated abstract operations; she asks way too much) that begetting is some preternatural and aboriginal ignorance. Whereas it is the commonest of all understandings, almost the bed rock of all natural societies understanding; despite some aboriginal tribal peoples (so socializing does NOT increase collectivised knowledge?) failing to make that link. Exceptions do not make the rule. Tribes may place a higher value on obtuseness, to continue the 'mysteries' of their cosmology, for instance. Here left wing anthropology defeats left wing political social engineering.

However, she goes on to say...

"But before the establishment of patriarchy through the discovery of paternity, sexual intercourse might have had a very different meaning, a pleasure quite removed from consequences. If paternity was not clear until the example of animal husbandry, with its use of breeding pens and sequestration, made the discovery of human paternity possible through analogy, the economic potential and social control over human birth and issue were not available to human males."(Millet: Sexual Politics)

The 'discovery of paternity' required an event, an actual physically connected event that relies on an abstraction for its realization! A sophisticated perception is somehow a 'given' while a plain biological fact is difficult enough as to require a scientific 'discovery' as if it were not in plain view; furthermore it requires an advance from plain animal keeping, hunting or observation-on into the much much later, implied, developments of animal husbandry; or agricultural science. I think her historical order of things is overmuch swayed by her plain desire to 'get the men' lynched. This is signified by the word patriarchy-and all its Marxist-feminist knee-jerk built in givens. She is playing to the already prepared gallery of her reading audience; the man haters anonymous; those pathologically addicted to hating men on sight for no reason whatsoever; completely out of spite.

Implied in her 'social control' notion is the idea that women already had this coercive politics natively within the anthropological conditions of early womanhood and had lost exclusive 'control' of it by men claiming it also alongside them in an equal partnership?: in other words if her argumentation here is granted as correct (for sake only of argument) patriarchy would mean a state of equality as mutual political control over children would then prevail as a shared enterprise. Her argument thus supports the neutrality of the gender political consciousness that results; unknowingly she argues for the fairness of patriarchy. Especially as a corrective to feminism and it’s biased and discriminatory bigotry.

It remains however a faulty unproven contention that analogy leads to knowledge of paternity. Surely the cruder analogy is much closer to home. An aboriginal man could observe that the same hole he 'used' for his seed is the same hole 'used' in birth by the egg: and the only thing that could stop him seeing that is the coercive social controls of women. There is a placenta too to declare in its extraction and connections plainly revealing the intermediary separation of baby from mother from body and life from life, thus there is birth right, male right and female rights. As deeply embedded within its linguistic and anthropological descriptions. The three are one in Family rights and supersede group rights (as in the case of mob rule).

Marx is wrong in all his theories: and where implemented have been nothing less than an absolute total disaster: there are no theorists today in Family psychology who support the mental speculations of one of revolutionary histories most failed fathers and parents, the University drop out Mr Karl Marx. Family sociology done from above, by politics and political interference is an obscene atrocity playing with the lives of ideological orphans. Children do not belong to politics: decent politics is the birthright of every child. Politics must behave according to the children as we find them.

As to 'sexuality without consequences' we can question that today thoroughly in the light of STDs, AIDS, HIV and divorce at 50% in America, making marriage virtually obsolete and citizen stakeholders absolutely wild with their own governments. This is not at all of benefit to some obsolete soviet  style revolution however: as a right wing one is much more highly likely. The reason is plain enough. Taxes. Government 'nanny state' interferences in private lives, (democratically disguised female governance) and the teaching of romantic but obsolete socialist ideas as gospel in state inculcatory institutions; they have become institutes of propaganda application, where once they were called schools for learning actual facts, and truthful, unbiased accounts of history, geography, language, math and the sciences; no wonder people pay more for private education, it actually tells you something useful.

Large scale social experiments make appalling societies and hands over government from reasonable average persons to evil minded control freaks. If social control was innocent, yet concentrated, it would inevitably attract evil control freaks eager to control the coverage of their own evil intent. Thus perverted female child molesters (hopefully rare) naturally will gravitate to places where both children and coercive control are focused. Child psychology, say; or teaching, or children’s institutes of all kinds. Jobs where you find many feminist women. It is also from this quarter that many dire warnings about men arise; is this because of the war psychology that the 'best means of defense' from their own potential accusers, the parents of children, particularly fathers-'is attack' their protected status first? Particularly as in a pre-emptive strike, before the men wake up to what is going on? This favoured concentration itself is a temptation; in that someone otherwise not freely attracted to children finds the prospect of near total control over the situation a turn-on like a power trip and the overall situation thus functions as an irresistible temptation toward some sexual turn. This is less likely to happen if parents are in control within the bounds of smaller family orientated units.

Kate Millet goes on to reassure us that 'discovery' information is essential: let us break that down. We will seriously deconstruct this passage.

"Knowledge of paternity is the key; until its discovery, the religious and monetary uses of the phallus and the seed were also not available. The discovery once made, patriarchy could and did invalidate all female participation in the spiritual creation of life, nominate the female as a mere vessel in which the magic seed grew, invent male gods who gave birth alone to Adam or Athena, and begin the long subordination of woman in every avenue of human experience and civilization — even to its symbols."(Millet:Sexual Politics)

Knowledge includes the idea of 'know'. Not the idea of discovery. To know does not need discovery.

One knows it. Knowledge is already revealed, it is known. Known knowledge is knowledge. To discover something implies that it is hidden.

Patriarchy is not hidden; the phallus and its prickliest operations are always known. The seed too is known. One mourns a dead egg in Menstruation; that too is known; it is like a small funeral. The death of life. One is set aside like in grief. Anthropology tells us that almost all cultures observe this in some form or other. The women feel it keenest. No tribe known on earth despises kinship relations; these are based on some sense of connection with the prospects of birth. The survival of the tribe depends on it. No analogy necessary in a vegetarian tribe, a tribe of cultivators for instance. Yet plants too more immediately relate to planting, the act of delving in soil placing seed would be a better more striking analogy. All food, represents labour. I cannot think why Marx avoided it. All food is produced on a seed and egg basis. Perhaps the division of life into animal and vegetable is specious; life is life; the same seed and egg basis applies for all its generations. The egg of course is the seed, androgyny of the soils. The earth is the ovum/womb, the harvest the crop, the bounty, the profit, the increase, the birth giving life to the tribe.

Some is accumulated; capital 'growth' for the future, the birth mark of all capitalism; as natural as co-operation. Seed set aside for the new plantings later in the season. Seed to be eaten, seed to be cooked, seed to be stored for eating also; all this early man was capable to do. Man the innovator, the seer of possibilities.

Some seed was stored for trade to trade for different foods to eat; different cloths to wear, different items for rope, for storage baskets, for sleeping, for bowls and cooking implements-caring for the wife, the mother of the couple’s children. Feminism cannot allow any echo of these words. Child, mother, couple, family; it is a softening element too far in their war on life, society and memory, even knowledge.

In their discoveries Kate Millet assumes too much; is speaking un-elaborated, unestablished to the converted, Her 'facts', that are not facts, a kind of intellectual masturbation-touching her own well rutted tropes in the ears of her audience; sounds good until you question their meaning. Most feminism is like that it tolerates no criticisms at all so listens only to its own siren voice in a roiling range of random socialist metaphors, feminist notions and badly configured statistics, lazy thinking of the first order. Once scrutinized it entirely collapses like wax on the griddle.

"The ovum was not discovered until the nineteenth century, and it appears to have had no such social or political significance." (Millet:Sexual Politics)

What do you think?

Send us feedback!