Originally posted 2017-08-18 21:56:41.
Women always think in terms of power. When they decorate a home they are showing their power within their space. When they outlaw masculinity and masculine behaviour, they are exercising power.
Men think in terms of targets and things rather than power. That is why a man gets irritated when his wife interferes with his prized model collection. It’s also why men ‘objectify’ women. Men objectify everything, there is no need to feel it’s special treatment.
Men, innately, seek to achieve targets and to acquire things as measures of status with which they can persuade women to give up what they want, which is sex. Women see their power over that sex as the means by which they can control the individual man they might be partnered with, but also the broader society.
Women — not men — commoditise sex.
Women make sex into a commodity that men must first compete to have access to, and then, in the context of a pair-bond, perform at the expected level to continue to be rewarded with. Women think in terms of power and men think in terms of sex.
When women enter the workplace, they do not seek money or status, which are masculine, sex-driven objectives, whose attraction is that their possession might secure sex, but for power, a feminine one.
Women see the material rewards of career in terms of power, while men see them in terms of sexual reward. But, because women’s power comes from their control over access to their own bodies, and this is seen as inviolable, it follows that women must be rewarded more highly than men. The only force capable of harnessing men’s greater aggression, dynamism and physical strength is their own desire for sex and women exploit this.
Society, after all, exists so that individual genes can be carried forwards. This requires that, within the Home group, women must have authority. They must have power. Therefore, when they enter the workplace and turn it into an extension of Home group they must enjoy the expression of power that comes from being better rewarded than men.
So Feminism is not about equality and never has been. It is about women having power; specifically, power over men.
The most fundamental power, for women, is that over their own bodies. Feminists argue that legal constraints over abortion limit that power and since it is so fundamental, they are extremely aggressive in defence of their ‘right’ to abortion. The logic is ‘how can I have power over society if I don’t have power over my body?’ Dead babies are just collateral damage to them.
Feminists reject Evolution and, indeed, through Post-modernism, all objective reality. Women who get pregnant and deliver, and then refuse to atone for the heinous crime of having babies (especially male ones) by exercising their power over men in the workplace, are shamed, by Feminists, and the men who support them vilified. Feminism is not about ‘rights’ or property. It’s about power.
Historically, power distribution between men and women has been on the basis of equivalence, not equality; that is how our species is evolved to be.
Feminism is a sexist ideology which insists that (born with) vagina, good, (born with) penis, bad. This blatantly discriminatory first premise is then bolstered, in contemporary feminism, by Post-modernist dogma. Especially in the form promoted by Michel Foucault, who is the darling of the Feminist Left today, this sees everything in terms of relative power, rather than wealth or scientific validity.
Indeed, Postmodernism rejects science and eschews reason and logic. Objective reality, in Postmodernism, has no special value. It is simply one ‘narrative’ or explanation, alongside as many others as there are viewers. Objective Reality, the constant that we all know is real and which we grow up learning the often hard-won lessons of, is replaced with subjective measures like feelings, ‘narrative’ and ‘lived experience.’
It should be immediately obvious that this would be popular with women, who already think primarily in terms of power and who place far higher value on feelings and interpersonal connections than men do. (Foucault was a submissive homosexual male; it is hard to believe, reading his work, that he did not have the ‘mind of a woman’.)
Feminism, in this form, has been expanded, through the application of Postmodernist power hierarchies and their interactions, which advocates call ‘intersectionality’, to apply to the society outside that of women. It does this by identifying ‘groups’ within society and ascribing them relative power values. The less ‘power’ a group has, the more ‘oppressed’ it is, and thus the more it is to be supported. This gives us so-called Identity Politics, in which we are all seen as simply a clone within the power group we are identified with; individuality means nothing. Status in Identity Politics is a function of the group’s ‘oppression quotient’, not of the individual within it.
Together, these pernicious ideas form ‘Cultural Marxism’.
True Marxist cult ideology is firmly rooted in reality. It is a materialist religion, effectively, promising a Heaven-on-Earth Utopia to those who live by its rules. (And, usually, who help in killing or violently dispossessing those who don’t.)
However, while Marxists have often seen themselves as pro-women — voir Engels, Marx himself and Lenin — their cult ideology has never fitted comfortably with female understanding of the world. This is because women do not think in terms of material wealth, as men do, but in terms of power, both in personal and in relative terms.
We know, from trait characteristic studies, that women are more socially-focussed and collectivist than men, and less inclined to be object-oriented, or materialistic. Men are inclined to be competitive and individualistic, and to be target-oriented. So men are concerned about the acquisition of wealth, and the gaining of status through that, while women are concerned about the maintenance of power and the acquisition of status through social role. On these and a host of other measures, men and women are simply different.
One consequence of these differences is that women do not find the materialistic basis of Marxism attractive, because they do not value material possessions so highly. They do value security, group status and social connectivity.
However, if we strip out the materialist base of Marxism and replace it with a Foucauldian Postmodernist construct of power, then it begins to fit better with women’s thinking patterns. This is why Cultural Marxism has become so influential: whereas materialist Marxism is severely masculine, Cultural Marxism is feminine.
Marxism, real and Cultural
In the 19th century, when Marxism appeared, women had little power in the broader society, so the advocates of Marxism were materially-thinking men. Now that women do have that power, they have largely jettisoned the materialistic form of Marxism and replaced it with the Cultural form, which is driven by ideas like power and social connectivity. These are inherently more appealing to women.
This revision of Marx’ materialistic cult ideology into a non-materialist one based on power hierarchies and social groups is why, now, the poorest white men are still the ‘oppressors’ to Cultural Marxists, when they certainly would not be to a real Marxist. The former places the power value it sees as inherent to group identity above the economic measure that a real Marxist must use. Thus a destitute, jobless white man is an ‘oppressor’, while a rich black Hollywood actress is ‘oppressed’.
These logical inconsistencies have become a problem as women have colonised the wider social space and, as ever, seek to radically change its social conventions to suit themselves. Remember, women think in terms of power and they use power over sex as the weapon through which to achieve control of society. Men think in terms of sex and so, confronted by an organised framework in which women’s power of access to sex is absolute, men submit to women in order to get sex.
However, even men have limits and the increasing pressure on them, the insistence that all masculinity must be suppressed, will reach a point at which everything falls apart. Then, civil war is likely. We have plenty of evidence, from archaeology. that this has happened before. Examples include the destruction of a feminised Minoan culture in Ancient Crete by a strongly masculine Mycenaean one, in a bloody war that lasted a century.
(It is arguable that periodic warfare is required to re-establish the balance between the sexes in societies, and if so, what we are seeing in the USA today does not bode well. In any armed conflict between masculine men on one side and masculine females and emasculated men on the other, the men will definitely prevail.)
Civil war would be catastrophic, but not unthinkable; it happens all the time. There is no question that we are veering now towards the brink and the pressure is coming entirely from Feminists, who are the motivators behind all the expressions of Cultural Marxism, from the odious ‘Black Lives Matter’ terror organisation to the largely white and hilariously misnamed ‘Antifa’.
Sex and Power
Until we recognise the simple truth that men and women think differently, one in terms of sex and target oriented, and the other in terms of power and socially oriented, we will not resolve the crisis we now face. Yet Feminists are absolutely determined that this simple truth never be acknowledged — as the recent furore at Google should make abundantly clear.
Why are they so determined? Because, as soon as one innate difference between men and women is established, the entire strategy behind feminist thinking, that women are just the same as men and it is only because men are evil that there are any problems at all, will collapse.
Of course, the glaring logical inconsistency is one that should make us laugh: if women and men are exactly the same in every way, why would women be any better at running society than men are?