Some thoughts about male and female feminists

Sir Roger Scruton/Dr. Jordan B. Peterson: Apprehending the Transcendent

Scruton comments: “The old way of teaching the humanities was as objects of love. This is what I have loved. This is what previous generations have loved who handed it on to me. Here. Try it out and you will love it too. Whereas the postmodern curriculum is a curriculum of hatred. It’s directed against our cultural inheritance.”

Peterson, describing that postmodern point of view: “This is the best of what the best of us could produce and it’s nothing. Why should you bother?”

When asked why someone would adopt a man-hating ideology, Scruton suggests that with a loss of a culturally inherited religious tradition and church attendance feminists feel something to be lacking in their lives but do not know what it is. They then surmise that it has been stolen from them.[1] They look at people who seem to be at peace with themselves and the world, the socially successful, who seem fairly content, and imagine it is they who have taken it.

“Social” justice, Peterson comments, is motivated far more by the hatred of the rich and successful than by love and compassion for the poor.

The feeling that something is missing and it has been stolen from one is related to Girard’s point that we can end up wanting someone else’s being. Hating ourselves and lamenting our condition we look at our neighbor and imagine that he has the divine inheritance and we want to exchange our being for another’s. The other person serves as a mimetic model, but also as an obstacle. It is not possible to be that neighbor because he is occupying that existential space, generating hatred and resentment towards him.

Since one’s position in most hierarchies is based on competence, e.g., the hierarchy of plumbers, dismantling hierarchies means promoting the incompetent at the expense of the more accomplished. Allowing very smart and motivated people to be successful means that some people will become very rich, increasing inequality. But societies that permit this end up richer than those that do not. It is a good use of resources to provide them for those who can make the most of them and all will tend to benefit from the resulting success of scientists, artists, musicians, entrepreneurs, etc.[2]

Jordan Peterson notes that nurses are also remunerated and accorded status within a hierarchy. Are they part of the patriarchy?[3] If not, why not? Is it only men who participate in patriarchy? Are the older more experienced nurses oppressing the younger ones? What is the difference between hierarchies of women versus hierarchies of men? None? Yes. So it would seem.

Feminism tends to denigrate all things associated with femininity. Since masculinity is the only other option, women want to seize this for themselves, only to find men already possess the lion’s share of the masculine traits. Men are both a mimetic model and an obstacle. Men are imagined to be the Tyrant King – creators of the patriarchy. And this turns women into the Evil Queen – the emasculating woman who seeks to denigrate men, to despise what they have done and to express contempt for half of the human race. It is imagined that all men’s achievements have been at the expense of women, excluding them from sharing in the treasure of accomplishment. It is true that necessary sex role divisions in the past will have had some dampening effect on female cultural achievement but less so than imagined. Evidence that men are illegitimate usurpers of women, it is imagined, can be seen by looking at those who have accomplished the most and have reached the heights of social status.

The fact is that men disproportionately occupy positions at both extremes – among the most successful and the least successful; in the bell curve “tails.”tails

Men are one standard deviation more aggressive than women. This makes very little difference with regard to most people. But it means that nearly all the most violent offenders are males – existing in the tails as outliers.

Men are 93% of prisoners, 60% of homeless, die younger, graduate from high school and college less frequently, suffer from hypertension, diabetes more, commit suicide at many times the rate of women, suffer from autism more frequently, and make up the majority of the severely mentally retarded.

Male intelligence is more widely dispersed than women – though the sexes have the same average intelligence. There are more at the top and more at the bottom. There is no reason to think this will ever change.

The thing is that both men and women care more about the welfare of women. Tania Reynolds in Half Hour of Heterodoxy points out that this holds true cross-culturally and she has the currently unpublished scientific research to prove it. It seems to be hard-wired into us. Women are biologically smaller and weaker than men, they are very vulnerable when pregnant and their mobility is restricted with little, helpless children to look after. Their lives are more important biologically because one man can impregnate many women, but a woman can only have one child at a time. If the female population is greatly reduced, the community will likely perish. Male life is thus regarded as cheap by comparison, and we send men off to fight in our wars.

C’est le vie. There is not necessarily any problem with this. It only becomes one when men and women start comparing hard luck stories. Both sexes are likely to side with women. A harm inflicted on a woman is simply regarded as worse than the same degree of harm suffered by a man.

Thus, feminism has a kind of siren call – inviting us to dash the relationship between the sexes on the rocks. Pointing at the men who occupy the very worst positions in society just has very little appeal and produces little concern or empathy.

After reading When One Sex Attacks the Other, Both Lose, one male student wrote “This article was so long and sexist, I couldn’t read it. Down with the patriarchy. You need to spend more time listening to the complaints of women, mate.” (The “mate” was thrown in as a gratuitous insult of over-familiarity connected to my Down Under origins since it is hardly an Americanism.) He also objected to my updated article on Why Men Earn More about the so-called wage gap. But all he could come up with was that it was not fair that women tend to spend more time on child-raising duties. Since women are more people oriented than men and are not judged by their job-related social status as much as men this is unlikely to change.

His confession that he had not actually bothered to read the article of course eliminates him from those who have any right to criticize it. The use of labels instead of arguments and resort to childish slogans are also illegitimate rhetorical moves.

A couple of the female students also objected to my argument that men and women have not in fact been at war with each other since the human species has existed, with the male sex devoting itself to the oppression of women. To fail to characterize men as acting exclusively or predominately in a hateful manner towards women since the human race began is currently regarded as “hate speech.” For evidence, see the protests of Warren Farrell’s lectures at a the University of Toronto.

One female student objected that “toxic masculinity” only refers to men who suppress their emotions in a way that conforms to social pressure to do so. The problem is that people who use this hateful phrase do not go on to describe beautiful, admirable, wonderful masculinity. At this moment in time, in discourse of this type, the only adjective ever uttered or written in this regard is the pejorative. The student claimed that this was a fair point.

Never mentioned is the fact that a surgeon, a paramedic, a soldier, a fireman will all quite appropriately suppress their emotions in times of crisis when fulfilling their savior role. Being “in touch with your feelings” is nice in some situations and pathological in others. And it is true that men who make very good saviors might be the very same ones who have trouble expressing emotion with their wives or girlfriends.

Anecdotally, I know two men who were excellent at confrontations. One had to defend his wife in no uncertain terms on a bus in Turkey from persistent unwanted sexual advances from a stranger. According to their wives, both men are terrible at discussing or even identifying their feelings or the feelings of their wives. It is difficult to be all things to all people. Simply eliminating so-called “toxic” masculinity would be likely to have undesirable unforeseen consequences were it even to be possible.

One thought that I had inspired by these reactions was that none of the students who embraced the “patriarchy” narrative can possibly have had a good relationship with their fathers. The idea that this male student comes from a well-functioning two parent family and that he has a really magnificent relationship with his dad seems extremely unlikely. It seems impossible that they go hunting together or that they share a love for astronomy and have spent countless hours examining the heavens and sharing knowledge from books on the subject. In my case, it would include reading to my son and supervising his music practice and with my father, discussing philosophy and theology and comparing ideas.

Just logically and emotionally – how could anyone claim that men suck while loving their father? At the very least, in their eyes, the father in order to be lovable would have to agree that men suck. Thus the father would hate his sons and the sons would hate their dads. No good relationship can be based on mutual contempt and hatred.

Anecdotally, two women I know have extrapolated from their own dads to all men, and the entire relationship between the sexes.

One woman had a very psychopathic sounding father who terrorized the entire family. She would be woken by him grabbing her by the hair and pulling. He would beat up his wife while the family watched. Despite otherwise being fairly conservative these experiences seem to have given her a very jaundiced view of the history of men and women.

Another woman had a father who worked all day and came home for dinner and to relax. The trouble was that his wife had also worked all day and then cooked that dinner and continued on into the evening with childcare duties. That was not fair. However, it is also not the norm in any society that I know of. It seemed to be the result of traditional sex roles not changing sufficiently for the new communist society that demanded that women worked outside the home.

With regard to the male student who imagines that I am unfamiliar with women’s complaints one of the things that gives him the upper hand in some ways is that he is presenting himself as a champion and defender of women. Ironically, he is conforming to the traditional male better than me. He is chivalrous and I am not. He is the knight in shining armor riding to rescue the damsel in distress and I am not. So indeed, I do feel on the back foot and am sensitive to the charge of lacking sensitivity!

It is he who is fulfilling the traditional role of men as the protector (and provider) for women, at least rhetorically. Of course, since he rejects this role as “sexist” his behavior is a performative contradiction AKA hypocritical.

What he has not noticed is that the first order of business for him should be to commit suicide since all men, without exception, belong to the oppressor class. Identity politics means judging someone by their immutable characteristics, not by his actions or character. There is no such thing as a good man on this view. Feminists do not look at each man as an individual and decide whether his actions have helped or hurt women – all men are condemned to the flames as participants in the imaginary patriarchy.

My argument that countless myths provide a more positive and accurate picture of the relationship between men and women; Adam and Eve, Plato’s myth of the globular origins of man, Heaven and Earth being separated to make a space for creatures to live and missing each other – as one frequently based on mutual love – and that men and women historically have needed to pull together just to get by and did not have the time or luxury of mutual antagonism, all of that is regarded as hateful. Men and women exist in a state of mutual dependence and, frequently, love.

In the past and today, intact families with a married father and mother who live together and cooperate in raising children have a much better track record according to just about every metric, than children raised by a single parent. Violence and drug use are reduced, eventual income is increased, classroom behavior and educational performance is improved, susceptibility to being bullied is reduced. 80% of violent offenders come from single parent families.

This notion is supposed to make me a sexist and a hater, while those who characterize the entire history of the sexes as entirely evil are what? Enlightened bringers of joy and happiness?

Self-flagellation and claims of mea culpa just for being male are the prerequisite to being the defender and protector of women in this context. But an emasculated, self-loathing male is in no position to help anyone; male or female. Logically, the only way of helping the world would be to rid it of his existence.

How odd to be judged by traditional standards of being the champion and defender of women by someone who utterly rejects that men have anything to contribute in that regard. But, like most other males, it is somewhat painful to be characterized as failing to live up to this ideal.

[1] I am told that Gustav Le Bon made similar comments.

[2] Peterson makes such points in the video.

[3]Apparently, the word “patriarchy” started out life as a neutral description. Feminists have adapted it as part of a man-hating worldview.

47 thoughts on “Some thoughts about male and female feminists

  1. Pingback: Some thoughts about male and female feminists | Reaction Times

  2. With regard to the male student who imagines that I am unfamiliar with women’s complaints one of the things that gives him the upper hand in some ways is that he is presenting himself as a champion and defender of women. He is chivalrous and I am not. He is the knight in shining armor riding to rescue the damsel in distress and I am not. So indeed, I do feel on the back foot and am sensitive to the charge of lacking sensitivity!

    Huh?! How old is this kid? Tell him to get back to you in about 25 years. What the hell does he know? What the hell *can* he know? Virtually nothing, that’s what. Make sure he understands that this is the reason he wouldn’t be allowed to exercise the franchise in a sane society as well.

    • Thanks, T. Morris. I did in fact write him about a ten point note beginning with his statement that my article was too sexist for him to actually read it.

      Indeed, he knows nothing and can know nothing but the whole topic is infiltrated with paradoxes and double binds. In apparently siding with women against belligerent men he gets to be the male champion. Of course, by pointing out that taking an adversarial attitude towards all men is not good for anyone, I am in fact right and being more helpful for both sexes. For biological and chivalrous reasons it’s very hard to convincingly tell even the deracinated female feminist to get lost in a public venue and come out looking good.

      • Prof Cocks:

        I read, with a great deal of interest, your essay in question (as well as the older one) when you first posted it. Indeed, I wrote a little post about it shortly following that I titled “Men Suck” at my kids’ private blog for their edification. Your student would certainly benefit a great deal from the essay(s) if he could get over himself and his (learned) feminist tendencies enough to read it/them with an objective mind.

        But he is right about at least one thing – the essay is indeed long. But we both know that if in fact he didn’t read it, it isn’t because it is “sexist”; rather it is because of its length, that he probably has the attention span of a six year-old (which isn’t exactly uncommon these days), and of course that he can’t be bothered to read past the first couple of paragraphs in any case because he already knows everything. That latter of which is not exactly uncommon for persons his age either.

      • @T. Morris – Thanks for that. Would you be willing to share with me the “Men Suck” post? If you send it as a comment, I can read it without posting it.

        The attention-deficit student said the essay reminded him of the documentary The Red Pill. It can be found on Amazon Prime but I didn’t find it very good. One of the men interviewed seemed to suffer from some social phobia, or something, that meant he was unable to keep his eyes open while speaking. Not exactly the ideal representative for non-feminists.

      • Brian D. Finch: I believe the correct term is “indexed.”

        Hahahaha! Spell correct strikes again! Of course what I originally wrote was “unsexed.”

      • Prof. Cocks: Below is my post, as per your request. The hyperlinks and blockquotes in the OP (such as the one back to your essay in question) do not transfer in the comboxes apparently, but be assured they are included in the post. Also, I said I wrote the post for my kids’ edification, but that is not exactly correct. I wrote it more for their spouses (both husbands and wives) edification, since my own children know precisely where I’m coming from on such matters, and have heard it all a thousand times or more. And please don’t expect much either; I am not the writer that you guys are at the Orthosphere. Without further ado:

        Men Suck

        In this (lengthy) Orthosphere essay Prof. Cocks offers us all an (incomplete but nevertheless) extensive list of (ongoing) male achievements which evidently prove to emotion-driven feminists to what great extent men really do suck. To wit:

        Again, men are who built your house, designed, built and installed your heating system and AC, mined the coal and uranium for the power plants driving these systems at great risk to their lives, are responsible for making those power plants and powerlines, mined the metals used in the products you buy, designed and built your cars, radically reduced mortality during childbirth, invented contraception and tampons, who collect your garbage, fix the roads, your leaking roof, invented glasses and contact lenses, the stereo you listen to, the TV you watch. The invention of the alphabet, both Latin and Cyrillic, the printing press, the internet and airplanes are pretty handy too. That is pretty good for a class of people all of whom suck.

        I myself have pointed most all of this out dozens of times before, albeit it in a slightly different and more personal/individual context. In any case, if ever you as a man or a woman are subjected to the thoughtless, mindless emotion-driven feminist view of the male sex by a member or members of “the sisterhood,” just always bear in mind and reflect on some of the reasons for which your life is made much easier and convenient than it otherwise would be without the achievements aforementioned almost exclusively accredited to men.

        If you, as a man, find yourself in particular on the receiving end of feminist ire (which undoubtedly you at some point will if you take a leading role in your family life, etc), my advice is to set the principal(s) down and help them to properly think it all out. Because that is usually what is lacking in such cases; the feminist echo chamber they sometimes find themselves in (which is not necessarily a place they themselves would normally go to in search for ‘answers’) is in no way rational, nor coherent.

      • @ T. Morris
        But, if all men are to be categorised and labelled as ‘x’,
        (where ‘x’ = misogynist, evil, brutal…etc)
        are we not thereby ‘indexed’?

      • But, if all men are to be categorised and labelled as ‘x’,
        (where ‘x’ = misogynist, evil, brutal…etc)
        are we not thereby ‘indexed’?

        I suppose so. Good point!

    • Feminism wants women to be equal.
      That’s all there is to feminism, nobody can argue with that. The most baffling problem is why would a body dispute equality?

      • Hi, essiep – That’s one stated version of feminism. The problems arise when feminists claim, for instance, that if 50% of physicists, engineers, CEOs, you name it, are not women, then this means women are being discriminated against. Or suggest that women and men are exactly the same.

        I’ll give you an example of the kind of thing I am commenting on. A woman blogged that Leonard Nimoy was a hero of hers because he took celebratory pictures of fat women and since she is fat, it made her feel good about herself. However, she ended her blog by saying that since Nimoy was white, straight and male that this disqualifies him from being a savior of any kind and that his sex, race and heterosexuality was thus a bad thing.

        Women’s studies departments could not exist if hatred of men was banned. They have set up a narrative of female oppression and that men are evil. All of us. We are damned by our sex – and race, if we happen to be white. The phrase du jour is “toxic masculinity.”

        I have three older, smart, strong, successful sisters. Nobody is oppressing them or stopping them from doing anything they want.

        If someone wants to celebrate women’s achievements that’s just fine with me.

      • “Feminism wants women to be equal.”
        Sure, we hear that all the time. It strikes me as strange that an ideology that trumpets its goal as “equality” should call itself “feminism,” which etymologically means “womanism.” That sounds more like gynocentrism than equality. If they were really about equality, wouldn’t they call themselves something else? Isn’t it rather like someone claiming to be for racial equality calling himself a “whitist”?
        If you read enough of their screeds, it becomes blindingly obvious that the pitch for “equality” is merely a front. Regardless of the surface message, most feminist writings have an unmistakable subtext: that men are inherently evil and wish to harm women. Otherwise (according to their narrative) why would men have oppressed them all these centuries? Of course, they can only think that way by blinding themselves to the countless ways men have sacrificed themselves to protect and provide for them, by willfully refusing to consider any good qualities men might have. As Professor Bertonneau has noted elsewhere on this site, feminism is a resentment-driven ideology. And like all resentment-driven ideologies, it inevitably tends toward distortion and hyperbole.

      • @Roger – Yes. If the term “humanist” hadn’t already been taken, and didn’t mean what it does (I’m not a fan), it might be more appropriate.

        Some years ago when people called feminists “man-haters” it was considered a slur by some. Now, most of what comes through my computer monitor is just openly misandrist. There’s a book called “The Feminist Lie: it was never about equality.” This charming piece of hatred for men agrees

      • When someone or other claims that ‘Feminism wants women to be equal,’ and ‘no one can argue with that,’ there is of course some truth to the statements.

        That – that Feminism is all about female equality and no one can legitimately deny it – is the benefit of retreating to the Motte in argumentation in obscure comboxes while feminists everywhere are out in the Bailey demanding unequal and preferential treatment. In other words, essiep, you can’t get that b.s. by anyone here.

        Additionally, no two persons is/are “equal” in any sense of the term that makes any sense in the world we all live in.

        My wife is not equal to me, and vice versa; she has certain strengths and weaknesses inherent to her nature, and so do I. I don’t treat her as my equal in any number of ways *because she isn’t my equal in any number of ways*, and again, nor does she treat me as her equal in those same ways. Indeed, where you see the *attempt* to do so in families, what you see over and over and over again is family dysfunction in more or less direct proportion to the level of the attempt.

        Here again, this has all been discussed many many times at this site, as well as other related sites. See Zippy Catholic as one example.

      • Feminism wants women to be equal.
        That’s all there is to feminism, nobody can argue with that. The most baffling problem is why would a body dispute equality?

        This whole comment is a classic motte-and-bailey resort. It should be in a textbook for everyone to see and understand the rhetorical technique, which is why I’m pulling it out here for dissection. It’s especially easy to see in this case because, ’round these parts, the motte is ramshackle and easily scaled.

        The ‘bailey’ of feminism is the general, actual claims of feminists – men are evil, women should be given anything and everything they possibly want, including most especially the power to ruin themselves, their families, and their societies at large, while being protected by the government from the consequences of these actions.

        The ‘motte’ of feminism is simply ‘equality of the sexes’, which is a completely unassailable position if you pay even lip-service to modern liberalism. The only possible responses begin with, “Yes, but…” and thereby cede the argument: sure, feminism is okay, I’m just talking about this kind or this manifestation of feminism…

        Of course it’s all complete hogwash, and you’re a numpty if you drink it.

      • Rhetocrates and T. Morris – I confess that although well-familiar with equivocation, the phrase “Motte and Bailey” as a species of equivocation is new to me. The phrase seems almost tailor made for feminism. It could work well also for “Violence against women is never OK.” And “Black lives matter.” The implication is that violence against men is just fine, and no one else’s lives matter. When criticized for the hateful omission, the criticizer is accused of intentional misunderstanding, and then the BLM, etc. just go back to the Bailey.

      • All the credit for my understanding of the Motte & Bailey equivocation belongs with Zippy, who first introduced me to the concept. It is ‘tailor made’ as you say for many of today’s leading social ills. I have talked about it quite a lot going back several years. One specific way I have seen the tactic effectively used is in declaring that e.g. Satanism and other occult practices are in reality just innocuous/harmless pastimes that their followers do as a sort of hobby like making bird houses or something. Meanwhile,…

      • I too learnt of motte-and-bailey argumentation techniques, as a distinct subspecies of equivocation, from Zippy. He got the term (and the description), from here, which I link as an excellent analysis as well as a defense of considering this form of equivocation as specific, since it is so over-used in defense of modernist ideals.

    • roundreason – I’m a bit confused by that one. There is, of course, also a hierarchy intelligence. And then intelligence will often be of assistance in rising in a hierarchy of competence.

      • I simply meant that our limited intelligence cannot replace the existing order of things. I am not a huge fan of intelligence, even in its proper form, let alone moral relativists claiming knowledge. But, in the absence of good and bad, it has become the only reference. I think this is sad. A person can be intelligent and bad, or stupid and good, to put in very simple terms. Intelligence won’t save us.

  3. Denmark offers the perfect example of a man-hating communist system. Men have been effectively socially castrated to produce an ‘equal’ society. Those that show signs of individuality, of personality, are regarded as ‘special’ (as in ‘special-needs’) and shunned or bullied and offered tranquilisers. Teenage boys approaching puberty who show signs of ‘rebellion’ (ie: normal children) are medicated to keep them the same as everyone else.

    I myself (a mere visitor, a Scotsman in a kilt) had the surreal experience of being visibly and volubly hated in a churchyard by a beautiful blonde female grave-digger to whom I had not so much as uttered a single word. Of course, if men had not invented mechanical diggers, she could never have made a living as a grave-digger. When heavy lifting has to be done without mechanical aids, it is men that have to do it – otherwise it doesn’t get done.

    On another occasion, while sitting in an Irish pub with a Greek lady friend watching a game of International Rugby between Scotland and Wales, a Danish woman told her emasculated(?) male escort: ‘I hate these people!’ [‘Jeg hader disse mennesker.’] So, why was she in an Irish pub when the Rugby was on? To confirm her prejudices? The whole place is demented.

    • Brian:

      I had to keep reminding myself while reading your comment that you in fact were talking about Denmark, and not about Weimerica. 🙂

      • If the SNP had their way, an independent Scotland would be the same. I want Scotland to be independent, but not governed like that…

  4. Fratboys and football players can slutshame and abuse feminist coeds and still get dates just fine, but the nerdy male feminist gets to worship women and fight the religious patriarchy in exchange for good boy points.

      • A good male feminist knows that he’s not entitled to sex, he’ll get a mature and experienced wife when the time is right, all those toxically masculine thugs she slept with when she was young and fresh were just for practice anyway.

  5. Here is an extract from today’s Daily Telegraph, which illustrates the systematic nature of the attempt to reprogramme humanity’s (sorry: mankind’s) thought and speech patterns:

    The European Parliament is attempting to stamp out the use of words such as “mankind” and “manpower” and have them replaced with more gender neutral terms such as “humanity” and “staff”. Officials and MEPs in the parliament, which has seats in Brussels and Strasbourg, have been sent a guidebook on using gender-neutral language in communications, EU legislation and interpretation. It calls on them to avoid the “generic use of man”. “Gender-neutral or gender-inclusive language is more than a matter of political correctness,” the guidebook reads, “Language powerfully reflects and influences attitudes, behaviour and perceptions.”

    I can think of few better reasons to vote for Brexit…

    • One of my pet peeves is when someone who claims to be a Scientist* takes a righteous stand about ‘manned’ space flight. Yes, women can go too. But the definition of ‘man’ also includes the sum of all human (huperson?) peoples. So unless women are not people and thus merit exclusion from ‘mankind’ or ‘manned space flight’, there is nothing incorrect about it.

      To restate their argument ad absurdem: I don’t understand language so I want it to change to how I understand it, rather than change my understanding to include a strange use of language.

      Isn’t that the definition of modernism?

      *Half the time when people refer to themselves as ‘Scientist’ what they mean is: “I’m a very smart person so you must listen to me.”

      • Scoot:

        Half the time when people refer to themselves as ‘Scientist’ what they mean is: “I’m a very smart person so you must listen to me.”

        I would replace the word “scientist” with “educated,” in which case I think you are onto something. Kind of like “literate” (in modern usage) vs “literate” in classical terms. The two iterations mean almost completely different things.

        In any case, I have an anecdote to tell you about one of my daughters. She was about eight or nine years old (she is now in her early 20s), and we (she and I) were studying the American Declaration of Independence when we ran upon the phrase declaring that “all men are created equal…” At which point my daughter interjected with her grave concern that, as a female, she felt completely left out in Jefferson’s otherwise glorious exaltation. I of course reassured her that when Jefferson wrote “all men” he meant “men” to include women, or “mankind,” although he didn’t mean by “created equal” “equality of outcomes.”

        My explanation to her she reluctantly assented to, although she continued to express the concern that Jefferson’s phraseology still made her feel unequal, and therefore ought to be altered to include women.

        Now, I do not pretend to know whether or not this is common amongst the females of the human species, but I have strong inclinations (and lots of other anecdotal evidence) that is indeed the case. The bottom line of which is that a matriarchal society is what we in the west are headed for, until we come to our senses and understand that matriarchal Societies can never work, thus we have to restore patriarchy to its rightful place in God’s design. Would a truly patriachical society deprive women of the opportunity to be, e.g., an astronaut or a Senator? Most likely, yes. But so what? What we’re talking about is the perpetuation of our society and culture (or not). Sorry, gals, but your feelings of inclusion and equality are simply not that important in the grand scheme of things.

      • T. Morris:
        I hope you’ll pardon my
        -self promotion

        but the declaration of independence is something i’ve only just recently discovered as a root of discontent in our fair Democratic Republic. Jointly the idea of ‘Equality’ and ‘Rights’; the former because we have dragged the definition so far from it’s root as to be indistinguishable from its original intent; the latter because the idea of ‘Rights’ is an attempt to disguise Classical Liberalism as Natural Law, which creates entitlement. Entitlement causes people to compare themselves to each other, and from thence no one is happy because everyone wants what everyone else has, you know, to be equal.

        I don’t know whether the phenomenon you describe can be generalized to apply to all women or whether it’s a trait unique to our age of inclusion and envy. A part of me believes it to be a more contemporaneous problem for *some* women. In my experience, generally women more accurately follow Kiplings idea of the females of the species!

      • @ TM
        The original meaning of ‘man’ in all the Germanic languages is ‘a human being regardless of sex.’ The clearest example of this usage I know of is in Genesis 1:27 – “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Gen 1:27 KJV)
        In Old English two words distinctive of sex were ‘wer’ (were) n.1 and ‘wīf’ (wife) n., ‘wǣpmann’ (wapman) n. and ‘wīfmann’ (woman) n. – as in ‘weaponman’ (or spearman) and ‘wifeman’ (or ‘wife’ – the diminutive ‘wifie’ of which is still used in Scotland today).

        Usage of ‘man’ on its own for a single ‘male’ was an abbreviation. In itself, the term could mean either a male or a female or a generic human being (only the context in which it occurred would enable the listener to decide which usage was intended), whereas ‘wife’ or ‘woman’ always meant a female.

        So, whereas a female man (wife or woman) had words all to herself, a (male) man had to share his word with the female. This did have the benefit of reinforcing his kinship with her – which linguistic kinship the harpies seem intent on breaking.

  6. Pingback: Feminism and a loveless future – FOR GOD AND COUNTRY


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.