Category Archives: History of Feminism

Steven Pinker – ‘We are Less Violent Because of Female Empowerment’

Posted on by
18

Psychologist Steven Pinker, author of the excellent ‘The Blank Slate’, is currently publicising a new book of his which examines why society has (according to him) become steadily less violent since the middle ages.  One of the most obvious reasons, he believes, is the empowerment of women.

In answer to the question – ‘What do you want readers to take away from your new book?’, he replies :

To be grateful for some of the institutions we take for granted, such as government and the court system. That, as much as we are irritated by lawyers, cops and government, the alternative is worse. The forces of reason, enlightenment, cosmopolitanism, women’s empowerment – we should be grateful for all this and not nostalgic for a time in which everyone’s world was far more constricted.

In an article at Edge magazine last month, discussing his book ‘A History of Violence’, Pinker points to statistics showing a dramatic and steady decline in the figures for both rape and domestic violence since the 1970′s. He assumes it to be the result of the awareness campaigns of second wave feminists, and uses it as a contextual argument for his wider thesis that the growth of minority rights groups results in less violence against vulnerable people in society.

The women’s rights movement has seen an 80 percent reduction in rape since the early ’70s when it was put on the agenda as a feminist issue. There has also been a two-thirds decline in domestic violence, spousal abuse, or wife beating, and a 50 percent decline in husband beating. In the most extreme form of domestic violence, namely uxoricide and matricide, there’s been a decline both in the number of wives that are murdered by their husband’s and the number of husbands that have been murdered by their wives. In fact, the decrease is much more dramatic for husbands. Feminism has been very good to men, who are now much more likely to survive a marriage without getting murdered by their wives.

I haven’t read the book yet, so perhaps there is more detailed argument contained within it for relating feminism and the alleged reduction in violence.  But it does seem that he is guilty of the same astonishing simple-mindedness in confusing correlation and causation, that our old friend Hank Pelisser made earlier this year.

Before giving some counter explanations, it needs to be made clear why intelligent people such as these two are so easily able to jump to such simplistic conclusions regarding feminism’s role in society.  The assumption is that feminism is part of the general progressive train of Enlightenment thinking.  But feminism is quite different to other civil rights campaigns, such as the abolition of slavery, of torture, the promotion of gay rights, anti-vivisectionism etc.  Unlike them, feminism did not arise as a  natural consequence of the decline of Christian thinking and a more objective, rational, and humane way at looking at how society treats all of its citizens.  Feminism arose primarily as a reaction against that Enlightenment way of thinking and its consequences – one of which, of course, was a steady opening up of the free sexual market, which has left the mass of ordinary women sexually disadvantaged in comparison to the young and beautiful.

Admittedly, a reason for feminism’s success is that it has been seen (particularly by educated men) as a natural progression in the ever more enlightened and rational way of social thinking and acceptance of universal humanity.  But in actual fact, feminism is a trojan horse that has been allowed to grow under the banner of secular liberalism, when in truth it has always wanted to destroy it.  Feminism is a vicious and selfish reaction to the forces of modernism and secularism.  Feminism is not the apex of the Enlightenment project but its antithesis and ultimately its destroyer.

I do not have space or time to discuss whether rape has really fallen so dramatically since the 1970′s.  But alternative explanations easily present themselves, assuming of course that the decline is genuine.

It’s hardly surprising that rape has been in free fall just as the free sexual market has steadily widened, and that this decline began most evidently in the very same years when the sexual market had suddenly been opened (with the adoption of the contraceptive pill).  Why would (some) men continue to resort to rape when suddenly they had the prospect of consequence free sex at the end of every visit to the pub or the club?  In fact, these statistics rather contradict the feminist mantra that rape is ‘all about power’, and instead confirm the real world common sense view that sex is about frustrated males getting sex by force when they can’t get it through consent.

The decline in rape has not been brought about by the women’s movement.  It has been brought about by the continual widening of the free sexual market, caused by secularism and technology like the pill,  bringing about the acceptance of promiscuous sex, as well as the increasingly widespread availability and tolerance of pornography.  The women’s movement, in fact, has been a reaction to that new sexual liberalism and accessibility, resulting in ever more desperate and frenzied attempts to restrict male sexuality and preserve the market value of the average vagina.

To finish with, some words about feminism and the decline of violence in general.  Pinker claims that ‘most violence is male’ and takes it as a given that the increase in political power of women will naturally result in a decline in male violence.

One could challenge the very assumption that violence has declined at all in the last few decades.  Whilst accepting that the incidence of murder, street robbery and assualt has declined, violence against the individual at a state level has increased.  For example, feminists giving the state the power to break down the doors of thousands of its citizens (and potentially millions more) in order to arrest them for looking at cartoon pictures in their own home, and to forcibly take them away to be incarcerated for perhaps years or even decades, is arguably an act of brutal state violence, and something that would likely have appalled most Enlightenment thinkers, and yet it is not something that would appear on Pinkers statistics for violent crime.

One could also state that feminism is a luxury that only successful, wealthy, and peaceful societies can afford.  I think Warren Farrell (or maybe Paul Elam) describes feminism as only being possible when men have made the environment safe enough for the women to leave the cave.

Pinker largely glosses over the inconvenient facts of two world wars occurring in the last century.  He seems to claim that they are blips and that, in any case, pound for pound they weren’t actually the most destructive wars in history.  He prefers to focus on the ‘great peace’ between nations, or at least superpowers, that has existed in the 65 odd years since the end of World War II.  This has to be down to the emergence of women into the political arena, he feels.

As I’ve argued here before, war between major powers effectively ended on that February night in Dresden when the British and American airforces burnt alive over 100,000 children, women, and pensioners.  From that point on, any major war would result in the deaths of as many women (or even more women) than men.  This is largely the reason why a shot has barely been fired in anger on the European continent since 1945.  German women were happy to cheer and wave off their brave menfolk to be slaughtered at the Eastern Front – the  ultimate shit test (‘come back a hero or come back dead’ has been the female cry of war for millenia).  But as soon as carpet bombing and nuclear weapons meant that every woman was effectively placed on the front-line, war has suddenly become unthinkable, at least in any society in which women have the vote.

Steve Moxon Sheffield Skeptics-in-the-Pub

Posted on by
4

Steve Moxon reveals on his blog that he is to give a talk on Political Correctness in a Sheffield pub next January (so long as the anonymous attempts to stop him aren’t successful).   A handy summary of his forthcoming talk is listed in his blog post, which I thought I would re-publish here (to read a full exposition of his ideas, please purchase his essential ‘The Woman Racket’ from Amazon).

‘Political correctness’ – PC – can accurately be considered the new fascism (as will be fully explained).
Contrary to its tenets, it’s the ordinary person, the Average Joe, we are prejudiced towards, and who indeed is disadvantaged and ‘oppressed’; not women, ethnic minorities and gays. 
* Women have always been actually privileged, and if in some way some women lost out as social conditions changed, then this was amended with a speed hampered only by inertia itself caused by the very strength of the arrangements already in place to provide female advantage but now anachronistic.
* Many ethnic-minority groups fare better in education and in work than the average citizen, often in the context of the sort of community cohesion now lost to the host culture.
* ‘Gays’ likewise benefit from community cohesion, are notably over-represented in nice-jobs-if-you-can-get-them, and don’t have the costs of compromising with the opposite sex.
The hard-done-by group in any and every society is the mass of (necessarily) lower-status males.
The deepest of reasons account for this: the root function of the male across biology (as will be explained). But synergistically with this, in our own culture there has been a pathological all-pervasive political development.

There is a powerful reason why we never hear talk about ‘the workers’ any more: it’s that they never ‘rose up’ as Marxist theory prescribed and predicted; leaving egg on the faces of those with a political-left mindset. Reducing this ‘cognitive-dissonance’ could be achieved in the classic way of not blaming either one’s own gullibility or the belief itself, and instead to blame others.
Given that the typical worker was male and white, so it became imperative to erase this sub-group from consideration as being in need of ‘liberation’, and to substitute sub-groups that are non-male and non-white. Hence women, ethnic minorities and gays were latched on to as the superficially plausible new ‘oppressed’; not merely displacing ‘the workers’ but inverting their role in ideology to be the new ‘oppressor’ class, whilst transforming the state in political imagination from the tool of the ‘boss’ class to the supposed agent of social change. On the standard principle that a turncoat is reviled even more than an enemy, enmity transferred from the ‘boss’ class to the mass of ordinary people (less the abstracted aforesaid sub-groups).
The process began long ago, in the late 1920s, when it was first realised that the Soviet experiment was failing economically, and that therefore a cultural rather than an economic theory of Marxism was required. Academics in central Europe (who took themselves and their ideas to the USA and its Ivy League universities) rationalised the failure of theory regarding the ‘proletariat’ by utilising then current (but now entirely discredited) pseudo-scientific ideas of Freud concerning repression and the family. ‘Capitalism’ was deemed to ‘repress’ the ‘worker’ through the agency of the family, which itself was falsely regarded as a ‘capitalist’ creation.
These idiotic notions filtered down through the vastly expanding university systems across the West in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, through highly influential writers such as Herbert Marcuse, ready to fully ‘hit the pavement’ at the time that the political-Left collapsed first as an electoral force (circa 1980 with the end of the post-war settlement and the rise of Thatcher and Reagan), and then as a forcible imposition (in 1989 with the spectacular implosion of the Soviet empire). In the 1990s, if not before, PC became the new religion of the government-media-education elite, and then, as ever, the rest of the establishment – not least the police and the judiciary – fell into line behind the new order.
It was never a question of ‘political correctness gone mad’: PC never made (any rational) sense in the first place. In pretending to be about being nice to people but actually despising us, it’s the deepest and widest, most serious political fraud in history; that may be – is clearly meant to be — the death of our culture. PC is the quintessential example of expressing pique in the time-honoured manner of ‘throwing the toys out of the pram’.

Brendan O’Neil : It isn’t the Catholic Church that is unhealthily obsessed with mythical Satanic sex – it is radical feminists and social workers

Posted on by
3

Amanda Knox acquittal: It isn’t the Catholic Church that is unhealthily obsessed with mythical Satanic sex – it is radical feminists and social workers

Apparently these oddball beliefs brought about the imprisonment of Knox, echoing the Catholic Church’s fifteenth-century witch hunts, which also were motored by a “fear of women’s sexual power over men”.This idea that the modern-day obsession with Satanism and crazy sexual degradation springs from somewhere within the Vatican is completely mad. It wasn’t Catholic officials or men of the cloth who in recent years rehabilitated the Middle Ages view that there are evil people out there who worship the devil and have sex while they’re doing it – no, it was radical feminists and social workers, in fact some of the same kind of people currently shedding tears over the witch-hunting of Knox. Across Western Europe and America in the 1980s and 90s, it was implacably atheistic, supposedly “Left-wing” activists who spread the idea that Satanism was making a comeback and that children were being raped and killed as a result. It was writers like Beatrix Campbell, a feminist and contributor to the Guardian, who argued in 1990 in Marxism Today, the then bible of the chattering Left, that Satanists were “organising rituals to penetrate any available orifice in troops of little children; to cut open rabbits or cats or people and drink their blood; to shit on silver trays and make the children eat it”. It was feministic social workers who, with the help of police, kidnapped working-class children from their families on the bizarre basis that they were being ritualistically abused. It was people like Oprah Winfrey, echoing academic feminists, who hosted TV shows claiming that some families in America were involved in “human sacrifice rituals and cannibalism” – watch the clip here.

Thanks to Angry Harry for picking up on the above excellent article by Spiked Magazine’s Brendan O’Neil, who readers may be familiar with for his frequent debunking of the myth of sex trafficking.

When it comes to the lingering Christian remnants of the virgin/whore type dualism that female sexuality has historically been seen through (for sound reasons – at least until recently), feminists really do want to have their cake and eat it.  The recent slut walks were an expression of feminist defiance at the historic male need (perfectly formalised through Christian sexual ethics) to ensure valid paternity of offspring through the promotion of monogomy and faithfulness, and the necessity for sexual decorum, in women.  At the same time, feminists exploit these same instinctive male attitudes when it comes to promoting child abuse hysteria, statutory rape laws, and legislation against prostitution and pornography.  Feminists like Jessica Valenti write books on ‘the purity myth’ whilst simultaneously exploiting that myth in order to justify draconian statutory rape punishments and thereby limit sexual competition from younger, more desirable females.  Or they appeal to the archetype of the ‘fallen Madonna’ in presenting their sex trafficking myths and arguments for ‘rescuing’ women who have escaped from a life-time of Third World poverty and mindless factory work through giving cheap anonymous sex to men.

The battle of the sexes has always been based upon the conflicting evolutionary reproductive strategies of men and women – men want to fuck many women, women want to love one man.  For most of history, this conflict has been held in check by a number of realities – one of which is the need for a father to ensure paternity over the child he is raising.  Judao-Christian sexual ethics restored balance to the sexual conflict that was beginning to run out of control in the teeming Godless cities of the later Roman Empire – taming the male sexual drive by requiring monogamy and commitment.  The part that women had to play in return – sexual modesty and faithfulness, was a win win for them, in terms of both hardly being a sacrifice at all in terms of their more limited sexual desires, and for also ensuring their own sexual value and economic survival as they grew older and lost their sexual appeal and ability to attract any other mate.

The increasing secularisation of industrial society slowly loosened that contract, and tore it asunder completely with the advent of the contraceptive pill.  Women, especially older and unattractive women, have discovered that they have lost more than men from this.  The result is the curious schism in 21st century society that this blog attempts to highlight.  Feminism is an illiberal, backward looking, anti-enlightenment reactionary project that is built upon medieval archetypes, dogmas, and sexual hysterias.  And yet, astonishingly, it is still held up by millions of intelligent, educated people as the pinnacle of liberal and secular ‘progress’.

Naomi Wolf : ‘Is Pornography Driving Men Crazy?’

Posted on by
23

Self-confessed rapist Naomi Wolf, writing for Al Jazeera, asks whether pornography is ‘rewiring the male brain’, and suggests that such men need counselling and medication (as well as clearly exploiting the false rape allegation against Strauss-Kahn in order to publicise and justify her new book).

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/06/2011630143536779660.html

Could the widespread availability and consumption of pornography in recent years actually be rewiring the male brain, affecting men’s judgment about sex and causing them to have more difficulty controlling their impulses?

There is an increasing body of scientific evidence to support this idea. Six years ago, I wrote an essay called “The Porn Myth,” which pointed out that therapists and sexual counselors were anecdotally connecting the rise in pornography consumption among young men with an increase in impotence and premature ejaculation among the same population. These were healthy young men who had no organic or psychological pathology that would disrupt normal sexual function.

The hypothesis among the experts was that pornography was progressively desensitising these men sexually. Indeed, hardcore pornography’s effectiveness in achieving rapid desensitisation in subjects has led to its frequent use in training doctors and military teams to deal with very shocking or sensitive situations.

Given the desensitisation effect on most male subjects, researchers found that they quickly required higher levels of stimulation to achieve the same level of arousal. The experts I interviewed at the time were speculating that porn use was desensitising healthy young men to the erotic appeal of their own partners.

Last week, whilst reading comments in old Spearhead articles, I came across a statement from a prominant MRA declaring that the third wave of feminism was about promoting porn and prostitution. If Naomi Wolf herself repeatedly declaring that third wave feminism is about the rape of the male and shutting off sexual alternatives to committed relationships doesn’t convince you that sexual trade union theory is correct, what will? Certainly not this blog.

Meanwhile gadget magazine T3 lists 11 ways in which new tech has blown open the free sexual market. (note to certain men’s rights supporters – new tech, not third wave feminists. They are the ones vainly trying to close it. Like Naomi.)

http://www.t3.com/features-gallery?articleId=28001

And Ray Kurzweil reports on how researchers are creating a new scientific discipline – ‘Lovotics’ – based on the search to build robots that humans can love and that can love humans back :

http://www.kurzweilai.net/lovotics-the-new-science-of-engineering-human-robot-love

Hot Beach Reads 1 : The Case Against Adolescence (Robert Epstein)

Posted on by
13

la conchaI’m sitting on the beach in San Sebastian, Spain.  In this part of the country, the Summer weather alternates between baking hot sunshine, and the Atlantic trying furiously to empty its entire contents above your head….often several times in the same hour.  But today it’s sunny and hot, and looks set fair, so I’m lying on the beautiful sands of ‘La Concha’, together with it seems the entire population of the Basque country, reading contentedly as the sun’s rays wreak havoc upon the DNA inside the cells of my Celtic skin.

As I look up from my Kindle, I see a completely naked sun bronzed man, around 50, walking towards a group of young Basque girls, maybe 13 or 14, one of whom is topless.  He sits down directly in front of them, a grin fixed to his face.  The girls immediately start giggling and teasing each other.  The topless girl pulls down the bikini top, and then the bottom, of her cute friend, who has a pigtail on either side of her hair.  The pretty pig-tailed girl, who looks like a character straight out of a Japanese anime comic book, barely resists, and is even giggling uncontrollably whilst this happens, as are her friends.  The man, meanwhile, just sits there grinning fixedly.

I begin to think about the flashbacks that the girls will suffer from in adult life.  The trauma, and the inability to form relationships, when they come to realise that they were abused, objectified, and sexualised by the naked man’s presence that day on La Concha beach.  One day, I think to myself, that man will be unlucky enough to sit next to the teen-aged children of British ex-pats, who no doubt will get their boyfriends to carve the sick  paedo up in an instant.  I turn my head away in disgust, and resume my Kindle reading.

The Case Against Adolescence (Robert Epstein)

One of the arguments I’ve often repeated on this site is that adolesence has been conflated by feminists with childhood, largely because it is in their sexual interests to conflate paedophilia (the sexual attraction to pre-pubescents) with normal male sexuality (which clearly finds teenage girls attractive, probably even the most attractive).  I’ve stated many times that this artificial conflation, which results in the sexual, moral, and intellectual infantalisation of teenagers, will likely have serious consequences for young people in their ability to become adults, and for the retardation of society as a whole.  In ‘The Case Against Adolescence’ Robert Epstein goes further than this, and claims that there is no such thing as adolescence at all - teenagers ARE adults, full stop.

According to Epstein, adolescence is a relatively recent social construction that American culture has imposed upon the youth of the world, fuelled by numerous self-interested groups, including Hollywood and the multi-billion dollar toys and games industry.  Although adolescence is artificial, unnatural, and unnecessary, it is very real in its devastating effects upon young people.  Kurzban makes a convincing and exhaustively argued case that all of the problems we associate with the teenage years, and see as an inevitable process of ‘growing up’, such as mood swings, aggression, reckless behaviour, are in fact caused by the lack of responsibility we give young people, and the way in which we isolate them from adults to the extent of trapping them inside an artificial bubble of  ’youth culture’, with young people mixing with and learning almost exclusively from their equally infantalized peers.

The book details numerous studies which find that intelligence and reasoning skills all peak in the early to mid teens.  It also makes practical suggestions as to how we can give back responsibility to teens, central to which is the replacement of arbitary age defined laws, such as the voting age, or the age of consent, with a universal test of relevant ‘competancies’.

I will write a longer review of the book for InMalaFide, but two brief points regarding it might be of interest to readers of this blog.  Firstly, a disappointing, but hardly surprising aspect is the book’s complete lack of recognition for the part played by the sexual trade union in extending the definition of childhood.  This is a little curious, given that Kurzban very convincingly posits that the child-labor laws of the 19th century were the biggest single cause of the extension of childhood, and that the chief motivating factor behind these laws was the desire of labor unions to keep younger and cheaper competition out of the job market (under the pretence of ‘protecting children’).  Given that Epstein, I’m sure, would have read greatly on the efforts of the Social Purity Movement in the same period, it is difficult to see how he could not extend the same argument and motivations to the early feminists and their decisive campaigns to raise the age of consent.  I did e-mail Robert Epstein recently to ask why he had omitted this element from the book.  He replied back promptly (and politely) that although he thought these things were all ‘intertwined’, other factors were more prominent.

On the other side of the coin, as mentioned above, the book is clear and brave in calling for a reform in the age of consent laws, as well all the other arbitrary laws based upon the infantilization of young adults.

On the whole, a superb and important book that I recommend to everybody.

Tomorrow’s hot beach read (in Biarritz) : Why Everybody (Else) is a Hypocrite (Robert Kurzban).

The Roman Ideal Woman

Posted on by
20

For the Roman male, the ideal woman would be a buxom 16 year old with ‘skin as white as wax, sparkling eyes, sweet breath, lustrous dark or auburn hair’ – no blondes or redheads – ‘a scented, sensuous, lissom body and a shaved clitoris, glowing like a pearl’. 

Taken from ‘Sex Lives of the Roman Emperors – Nigel Cawthorne’ (entertaining read).

So male sexuality hasn’t changed much in 2,000 years then.

Two years too late with this one, but it’s still funny if  you haven’t seen it before :

And, yes, you can now legally get your hands on her :

Finally Miley

First article posted on InMalaFide.com : The History of Feminism as a Sexual Trade Union Thanks to Ferdinand for publishing it (and as a featured post).

Problems with the comment system – apologies to anybody who has posted a comment only to find that it ‘disappeared’ as soon as you pressed submit. I’ve always had a lot of spam bot comments (viagra, penis pills, and the like ) so I had to set the spam filter higher. The last couple of days I appear to have come under a veritable spam attack, and have been recieving up to 20 such spam comments every hour. I presume this is the work of Mikee USA, a feminist troll who is clearly seeking to make impossible any rational discussion of male sexuality. Either that or he is a psychopath who is punishing me for being the only MRA who was prepared to give him a chance. Obviously it is a nightmare having to moderate such levels of spam, so I’ve finally upgraded to a new spam filter, which hopefully will do the trick, especially as I’ll be on holiday soon.

Please don’t stop leaving comments. For a site as small and ‘fringe’ as mine, I realise I am very lucky to have such a number of highly intelligent and insightful readers prepared to contribute. Please continue to do so!

Academics Support Size Zero Models..and Sexual Trade Union Theory

Posted on by
13

Forget chubby, keep it slim! Says a new controversial report supporting size zero.

Despite many slamming size zero models – even Victoria Beckham banned them  from her fashion show last year – the runway waif has now been backed by top academics.

A new report warns that getting rid of super-skinny models could worsen the nation’s obesity epidemic.

Researchers Dr Davide Dragone and Dr Luca Savorelli, from the University of Bologna, Italy claim that introducing larger models will increase unhealthy eating habits.

On the same basis as these academics, I’ve argued previously that in the midst of a child obesity epidemic, the feminist obsession with anorexia and the banning of ‘idealistic’ slim images of women is an utter obscenity and a clear form of child abuse.  But what’s more, it’s clear evidence for the sexual trade union theory of what feminism is.

I’ve promised Ferdinand Bardemu I’ll write the occasional article for Inmalafide.  I thought I’d start with an outline of the theory propounded on this blog that feminism is a sexual trade union for women reacting to changes in technology that continue to drive open the free sexual market (and put feminists, and the majority of women, at a sexual disadvantage).

Thinking about the article, I’ve been forced to reflect again on why I think this explanation of feminism is superior to the massively more popular ‘Cultural Marxism’ accounts.  And I’ve read again the first chapter of Steve Moxon’s excellent (and essential) ‘The Woman Racket’ and also Angry Harry’s typically cogent and well argued essay ‘Cultural Marxism and Feminism’.

I don’t think sexual trade union theory, and theories that place Cultural Marxism at the center, are actually in opposition.  I just think that the latter are simply incapable of providing complete explanations of the entire historical narrative of feminism, and the specific focus that feminism has always had on protecting the sexual interests of its supporters as they become increasingly threatened by a forever widening free sexual market.  Cultural Marxism has been the intellectual mask, the rationalisation, that feminism has needed since the sexual market was blown open with the introduction of the contraceptive pill.  That is not to deny that Cultural Marxism has, indeed, had a very concrete and leading role in the astonishing ‘success’ that feminism has enjoyed in the last few decades.  But, for me, it is sexual trade union theory that best explains the underlying psychological motivations behind feminists themselves. 

Feminism began with the religious and conservative social purity movements of the 19th century.  The first agitators for the vote for women were often extremely and openly racist. In fact, many argued that it was necessary for white women to gain the vote as a counter to the enfranchisement of the black male.  It should also be remembered that the first men’s rights activist, Ernest Belfort Bax, was a socialist thinker.  Since the 60′s, feminism has certainly been predominantly left-wing.  But recently, with the likes of Sarah Palin, we’ve begun to see the strong re-emergence of the ‘femiservative’ (a term coined by Ferdinand Bardemu).

Feminists have always changed their political allegiances with the wind.  The only constant is that whichever intellectual or political theory their movement adopts, they do so with the rationalisation and protection of their threatened sexual interests chiefly in mind (consciously or subconsciously).

The feminist focus upon, and exploitation of, anorexia, and the campaign against size zero models, as well as laws such as the recent French ban on ‘digitally airbrushed images of women in the media’, can be explained partly by cultural marxism, but more exhaustively (and more simply) by sexual trade union theory.

Not only do feminists pursue a policy of campaigning against size zero models, as well as digitally slimmed down images of women, policies that will likely cause a rise in general obesity, (something that is a far greater problem for young girls than is anorexia).  They also remain completely silent about the fast food industry, which spends millions and makes billions in persuading young people to eat their unhealthy, fattening products.

 But really, why should cultural marxism, in itself, so clearly lead feminists to confront the fashion industry rather than the fast food industry?  Other ‘liberal progressives’ and Michael Moore Wannabes have.  The fashion industry is dominated by homosexual men who, in the words of one commentator, want their female models to be as sexless and aneroxic as possible, as a kind of substitute for the unattainable boys that they pine for.  Not exactly the usual bogeymen of cultural Marxism. The food industry is dominated by buisnessmen running international corporations that make massive profits from destroying the health of children through obesity…and ruining the sexual attractiveness of teenage girls (something, which of course, feminists want).  The multi-billion dollar male dominated fast food industry is a more logical and honest target for victim and opresser ideology, but attacking the fashion industry, and remaining silent upon obesity and fast food, serves the sexual interests of feminists much better.

The fact is that only sexual trade union theory can explain all feminist behaviour, from particular campaigns such as the targeting of ‘size zero models’, to the broad brush strokes of each successive wave of feminism.  Feminism has always been the story of women being stirred into increasing political activism as new technology threatens their sexual power in a market that continues to open.  Size zero models and digitally airbrushed images are just one of the latest manifestations of this in the history of feminism as a sexual trade union.

The Centuries Old Sexual Trade Union

Posted on by
2

W.F.Price has uncovered a classic piece of feminist history in the 1674 Women’s Campaign Against Coffee.  Yes, women were lobbying the British Government as far back as the 17th century in order to stop their sexual interests being threatened by change (in this case, the introduction of coffee houses) :

It turns out that a group of proto-feminists had approached the king demanding that he shut down the coffee houses a year earlier, as the elixir was held to be causing their husbands to become snotty, “Frenchified” fellows who had lost all interest in sex (with their wives).
The document they presented is “The Women’s Petition Against Coffee,” and it is well worth reading for the humor therein if nothing else. In one hilarious passage, the “Buxome Good Women” warn that coffee-drinking husbands run the risk of being “Cuckol’d by Dildo’s.”

Linked in the comments section of that very Spearhead piece was another illuminating article that deserves highlighting – Seven Ideas You Can Never Discuss on Television :

6. WOMEN AREN’T TOTALLY INNOCENT AND HELPLESS.
Although there isn’t a person alive who hasn’t met a despicable woman, it remains heretical to imply that women may possibly be human beings, and as such, they may be capable of acting with willful malice toward others. Despite the fact that nearly every sociological study of family violence ever conducted has concluded that women hit men at least as frequently as the inverse, “domestic violence” is still viewed as an exclusively male-on-female phenomenon. But who needs muscles when you have WMDs such as societal prejudice and the law squarely on your side? In her book When She Was Bad, author Patricia Pearson argued that until puberty, boys and girls both express aggression physically. Around age 12 women turn to more sophisticated tactics for intentionally inflicting harm: gossip, shaming, and false accusations. It’s like on Seinfeld where Elaine explains that instead of giving one another wedgies, girls tease each other until they develop eating disorders. False rape charges, as well as phony claims of domestic abuse and sexual harassment, have become commonplace. The double standard is so lopsided, female spousal abusers are even permitted to become Secretary of State without it ever becoming an issue in their vetting process.

That article appeared on the website of ‘Taki’ – (Taki Theodoracopulos) – a right-wing Conservative British Greek who once infamously upset the sexual trade union by declaring a manifestly obvious truth - that the social condemnation of older men having sex with 14 year old girls is chiefly about ‘feminists stopping men pursuing younger skin’.