I would add that thanks to feminism we now live in a society that has no core, no central sense of belonging. Women were once the center of life – of the family, of the church, of the town or city. They were the ones who through their sense of tribalism held it all together. But it was a tribalism that created a sense of belonging, of something worth living for. They were also the ones who were the force behind such good works as emancipation in the 19th century, the workers movement of the early 20th century (and abolition as well, it needs to be said). But they did all this on behalf of all of us, because they believed it was the direction society need to go, under the understanding that it was right for all of us.
But since the advent of modern feminism, it has become all about them, and the rest of the world be damned, men and boys in particular. And the world is poorer for it, and much more divided and partisan as a result.
Marxists and their various subgroups identified that women were the core of traditional society, which was an impediment to the revolution. And the nuclear and extended family needed to be destroyed in order to re-create human society into its socialist and thence communist form. Germaine Greer amongst many other british and european feminists of the sexual liberation apostles were explicit about this. They grew from writing pamphlets and books and radical magazines to establish "womens' studies" and thence "gender studies" and infecting Universities. And so we have seen women move from the "right" to the "left" in my adult lifetime. Now they are apparently all for choosing your sex. For the marxists, job done.
Nigel, the promotion of feminist liberty freedom is useful to those who want to sow divisiveness in two ways. It can be portrayed as freedom for women, but flipped into an oppressive form of exploitation (e.g, "male gaze"). By lacking a coherent ideology, feminism can morph to take advantage of current or changing social views about behavior, income, labor and what used to be known as intimate relationships.
Thanks, Gregory! I also turned the video into one of my first Substack articles. It's an incredible novel. (One of my friends, to whom I recommended it, quit after the first 100 pages. James is not to everyone's taste, perhaps needless to say):
Strindberg, the Swedish playwright, also wrote some anti-feminist stories. 20th century: The World according to Garp is at least critical. Garp even gets murdered by a crazy feminist.
I'm pretty sure that many men were behind emancipation and workers' rights. Women were central to the temperance movement, convinced of their own moral superiority.
Women didn't play a larger role than men in the abolitionist movement.
It's just not true that drunk husbands beat their wives systemically. This is feminist propaganda and it's the same today as people who drone on about female domestic violence.
In the 1920, women could work wherever the hell they wanted to. There were tons of universities open to them as well. It's not true that work wasn't open to them.
No, women are not more important to a sense of belonging than men. Why do children with no fathers feel insecure in themselves?
This is simping. Women were never the center of life, nor should they be. Women should be normal people. Maybe with different behaviors, but definitely not the center of life itself. Geez.
No, women don't get to take credit for emancipation. Thats something that Christian groups take credit for, men and women.
Men used to have a sense of belonging from their male friends as much as their wives, but make friendships have been destroyed.
There is just so much reverence of women amongst even antifeminist. It's corny and explains pretty well why feminism took over the world.
I'm sure the general populace embraced feminism because they thought womennwere the center of life too.
Perhaps we as society (and I along with it) DO revere women too much. And perhaps that is the main reason feminism is so hard to fight. But it seems to me that is just the way we are as humans. Which, among other things, explains why so many of us are unable to see through the ridiculous nature of the premise presented in works like The Handmaids Tale. But like I said, that is just the way we are, and fighting that seems just as pointless as feminists fighting against the natural differences between the sexes.
I have to pushback on the ides that reverence of women is inevitable.
It's something that only cropped up in the 19th century and it has strong connection to the rise of romanticism and emotionalism in culture.
I don't mean to say that people should cease being protective of women, that is definitely biologically ingrained.
But statements like "women are the center of life" serve to place women on an unearned pedestal of importance. It downplays the importance of men and overstates the importance of women. Women definitely contribute to society, but men make their contribution as well, and, if we must say that ones sex contribution is greater (which I don't really like saying) I'd have to say that it's probably men's. There's no reason we have to revere women the way we currently do.
In an ideal society, the contributions would be equal, I'd say. Women who bear and raise children make a tremendous contribution impossible to quantify. Men, on the other hand, build the material world, keep it running, and defend it. Today, too few women bother to have children or devote themselves to raising them well (and I say this as a woman who never had children, so I did not do my part and I admit that).
I agree that most womens primary contribution will probably be their children.
However, there have always been women who didn't have children and who opted towards other paths. I'm thinking of nuns and such. Hildegard von Bingen comes to mind. I also think that fathering should be emphasized as one of men's contribution, seeing as how fatherlessness is deleterious to society.
I did not mean to “downplay the importance of men.” Rather I was trying to demonstrate the difference between the roles men and women have traditionally played in society, by stating that women were at the center of the family and the church, rather than at the head, which is where men have traditionally been.
But feminism is now trying to place women at the head of everything, which is a role they are not particularly well suited at playing, as evidenced by the fact that studies show that even women do not want to work for female bosses. But it also means there is no one to occupy the center, or if you prefer the heart of our world and its institutions. And that may help explain why we, as a society, are a lot less centered and united, and generally a lot more hateful and partisan than we have been in the past.
The reason why we are so much more hateful and partisan than in the past is because women are at the center of life right now.
No, women shouldn't be at the center. Women aren't the center of anything.
The world shouldn't be set up to prioritize women. Women need to be seriously sidelined in the world that we live in.
The distinction you make between the head and the center sound like new agey mumbo jumbo.
In the past, women were prioritized less, and men were prioritized more relative to their current positions. They were both pretty much equally prioritized in their respective domains. Women were less of the center than they are now, and it was for the better.
I would add that thanks to feminism we now live in a society that has no core, no central sense of belonging. Women were once the center of life – of the family, of the church, of the town or city. They were the ones who through their sense of tribalism held it all together. But it was a tribalism that created a sense of belonging, of something worth living for. They were also the ones who were the force behind such good works as emancipation in the 19th century, the workers movement of the early 20th century (and abolition as well, it needs to be said). But they did all this on behalf of all of us, because they believed it was the direction society need to go, under the understanding that it was right for all of us.
But since the advent of modern feminism, it has become all about them, and the rest of the world be damned, men and boys in particular. And the world is poorer for it, and much more divided and partisan as a result.
Marxists and their various subgroups identified that women were the core of traditional society, which was an impediment to the revolution. And the nuclear and extended family needed to be destroyed in order to re-create human society into its socialist and thence communist form. Germaine Greer amongst many other british and european feminists of the sexual liberation apostles were explicit about this. They grew from writing pamphlets and books and radical magazines to establish "womens' studies" and thence "gender studies" and infecting Universities. And so we have seen women move from the "right" to the "left" in my adult lifetime. Now they are apparently all for choosing your sex. For the marxists, job done.
Nigel, the promotion of feminist liberty freedom is useful to those who want to sow divisiveness in two ways. It can be portrayed as freedom for women, but flipped into an oppressive form of exploitation (e.g, "male gaze"). By lacking a coherent ideology, feminism can morph to take advantage of current or changing social views about behavior, income, labor and what used to be known as intimate relationships.
Henry James's The Bostonians, about which Janice has made a video, makes this argument with incredible style.
Thanks, Gregory! I also turned the video into one of my first Substack articles. It's an incredible novel. (One of my friends, to whom I recommended it, quit after the first 100 pages. James is not to everyone's taste, perhaps needless to say):
https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/henry-james-the-menace-of-feminism
Strindberg, the Swedish playwright, also wrote some anti-feminist stories. 20th century: The World according to Garp is at least critical. Garp even gets murdered by a crazy feminist.
I have a book of his plays on loan from my local library. Haven't started on them yet.
Not sure if the plays are about it. But I think his Marriage Stories are.
I'm listening to it on audiobook. Just a few chapters left. But it seems the shrew, Olive Chancellor, isn't going to get tamed, just declawed.
I'm pretty sure that many men were behind emancipation and workers' rights. Women were central to the temperance movement, convinced of their own moral superiority.
Women didn't play a larger role than men in the abolitionist movement.
It's just not true that drunk husbands beat their wives systemically. This is feminist propaganda and it's the same today as people who drone on about female domestic violence.
In the 1920, women could work wherever the hell they wanted to. There were tons of universities open to them as well. It's not true that work wasn't open to them.
Some husbands do that today. Some wives do that today and back then too.
Look up the henpecked social club. It's very illuminating.
Feminists have always been fear mongering about domestic violence.
And, yes, women did play a large role in abolitionism. I just don't think it's bigger than men's. I think it's equal.
Do you remember Punch and Judy?
Extremely well said.
Disagree. You revere women too much.
No, women are not more important to a sense of belonging than men. Why do children with no fathers feel insecure in themselves?
This is simping. Women were never the center of life, nor should they be. Women should be normal people. Maybe with different behaviors, but definitely not the center of life itself. Geez.
No, women don't get to take credit for emancipation. Thats something that Christian groups take credit for, men and women.
Men used to have a sense of belonging from their male friends as much as their wives, but make friendships have been destroyed.
There is just so much reverence of women amongst even antifeminist. It's corny and explains pretty well why feminism took over the world.
I'm sure the general populace embraced feminism because they thought womennwere the center of life too.
Perhaps we as society (and I along with it) DO revere women too much. And perhaps that is the main reason feminism is so hard to fight. But it seems to me that is just the way we are as humans. Which, among other things, explains why so many of us are unable to see through the ridiculous nature of the premise presented in works like The Handmaids Tale. But like I said, that is just the way we are, and fighting that seems just as pointless as feminists fighting against the natural differences between the sexes.
I have to pushback on the ides that reverence of women is inevitable.
It's something that only cropped up in the 19th century and it has strong connection to the rise of romanticism and emotionalism in culture.
I don't mean to say that people should cease being protective of women, that is definitely biologically ingrained.
But statements like "women are the center of life" serve to place women on an unearned pedestal of importance. It downplays the importance of men and overstates the importance of women. Women definitely contribute to society, but men make their contribution as well, and, if we must say that ones sex contribution is greater (which I don't really like saying) I'd have to say that it's probably men's. There's no reason we have to revere women the way we currently do.
In an ideal society, the contributions would be equal, I'd say. Women who bear and raise children make a tremendous contribution impossible to quantify. Men, on the other hand, build the material world, keep it running, and defend it. Today, too few women bother to have children or devote themselves to raising them well (and I say this as a woman who never had children, so I did not do my part and I admit that).
I agree that most womens primary contribution will probably be their children.
However, there have always been women who didn't have children and who opted towards other paths. I'm thinking of nuns and such. Hildegard von Bingen comes to mind. I also think that fathering should be emphasized as one of men's contribution, seeing as how fatherlessness is deleterious to society.
But yes, I pretty much agree.
I did not mean to “downplay the importance of men.” Rather I was trying to demonstrate the difference between the roles men and women have traditionally played in society, by stating that women were at the center of the family and the church, rather than at the head, which is where men have traditionally been.
But feminism is now trying to place women at the head of everything, which is a role they are not particularly well suited at playing, as evidenced by the fact that studies show that even women do not want to work for female bosses. But it also means there is no one to occupy the center, or if you prefer the heart of our world and its institutions. And that may help explain why we, as a society, are a lot less centered and united, and generally a lot more hateful and partisan than we have been in the past.
Again, disagree.
The reason why we are so much more hateful and partisan than in the past is because women are at the center of life right now.
No, women shouldn't be at the center. Women aren't the center of anything.
The world shouldn't be set up to prioritize women. Women need to be seriously sidelined in the world that we live in.
The distinction you make between the head and the center sound like new agey mumbo jumbo.
In the past, women were prioritized less, and men were prioritized more relative to their current positions. They were both pretty much equally prioritized in their respective domains. Women were less of the center than they are now, and it was for the better.