Whilst I was on my travels recently, I came to the decision that I would put down my definitive thoughts upon the nature, history, and future of feminism, in a structured and extended essay. Once completed, I will disseminate it across the net, and if I should decide, as I might, to close down this blog, I can be content that my thoughts have been given a concrete, lasting shape.
Most of my posts here, when they are not specifically news related (such as the previous one), can be looked upon merely as crude sketches aiming towards this intended longer piece. Comment and discussion is welcome, and any thoughts that end up in my finished essay will be acknowledged.
Any reader familiar with this blog's ideas will be aware of my belief that feminism is, and always has been, a blind and sub-conscious response to new technologies directly, or indirectly, opening up the free sexual market (such as industrialisation, or the contraceptive pill), and which have left the great mass of unattractive women in a hugely disadvantaged position (in terms of sexual power, which until recently was synonymous with a woman's economic power - and still appears to be so in a woman's subconscious brain).
So I thought it would be useful to take a look at some new technologies that are quite likely to arise very soon, and what impact they might have upon the never-ending sex war. As the pace of technological progress speeds up, the social impacts are likely to become increasingly hard to predict or control. Power may come to those who are most able to predict what those effects might be.
I want to start with the idea of a Male Contraceptive Pill. This is because it is the one technology that nearly all men's rights supporters assume, or at least hope, could transform our fortunes. In discussing why (for me) this will not be the case, the opportunity is also given (again) to highlight the real dynamics of feminism, and detail just how the pill triggered second wave feminism without directly 'giving power' to women.
I also want to (briefly) discuss the male pill because, I have to humbly admit, I could be, and probably am, missing something very fundamental here, and I would invite any readers of this article to enlighten me, or direct me to a good essay that does explain clearly the importance to men of the development of a male contraceptive pill.
Because I really, really dont get it.
Well, o.k., I can see that a male pill will reduce female power in terms of not being able to trick men into impregnating them. Beyond that, which really amounts to individual tragedies involving a relatively small number of men, I can't see any reason to believe that it could have the transformative power upon society that the female contraceptive pill did.
As I have stated here before : the pill did not give women power over men, the pill forced women to take power from men.
The idea that the pill 'liberated' women is one of the greatest of modern myths. The pill gave men consequence free sex almost as much as it did for women, and the collective long-term consequences for women were far worse (or at least were, until in some ways redressed by feminism). The pill quickly overturned social norms regarding pre-marital and casual sex. Who were the real 'winners' in such a new and sexually liberated society? Nubile young females aged between 14 and 25, the men who could attract them into bed (there is of course a debate within the MRM as to what pecentage of men that is/was), and very, very few other people - especially not the older, unattractive woman who could not hope to sexually compete with her younger rivals.
Of course, the pill was proclaimed as a liberator of women - above all by the first white knight male supporters of feminism who were now able to get them into bed. Women could finally enjoy sex without having to endure 9 months of hell and a life-long commitment to a resulting child. But what really happened, as both Lionel Tiger and Neil Lyndon engagingly explain in their respective men's rights classics, is that the sudden lack of commitment and obligation ran both ways. Not only could young nubile females now open their legs without having their entire existences being transformed, men too, could suddenly experience as much sex as they could get, without having to fear a shotgun wedding or any other similar life-long consequence resulting from an unwanted pregnancy.
And so men stopped committing.
And the female rush into employment and education, and (seemingly contradictory) the demand for the right to an abortion, began almost immediately. Second wave feminism was triggered by the almost overnight collapse of Judeo-Christian sexual ethics, something caused by the widespread introduction of the contraceptive pill. A system of ethics that had served women so well for centuries had vanished. Women could no longer rely on the life-long commitment, and economic and physical protection, of a man. And even women already married were made insecure and threatened by the sudden availability to their husbands of millions of sexually available and attractive 'liberated' young women.
Second Wave Feminism was a blind and deterministic response to a sudden change in the dynamics of the sexual market. Most feminists at the time didn't really have a clue what was going on. Twinned with the convenient intellectual dressing of Cultural Marxism, talk of the pill bringing about 'women's liberation' was simply a sub-conscious rationalisation of events that nobody, let alone feminists, had any real control over.
Because the second wave was largely blind and irrationalist, the response by feminists ironically had the effect of still further widening the free sexual market and threatening even more the sexual and economic power of older, unattractive women. For example, the sudden rush into the University system of legions of attractive young females only served to intensify the culture of casual, pre-marital sex, as well as (and with those young women entering careers after university) delaying the age at which women expected to marry - thus making available to the free sex market millions of single young women who would otherwise be tied up in marriage. As EvilWhiteMale put it here recently, feminism is an (irrational) self-feeding loop. One that is quickly destroying Western civilisation.
So where do these reflections leave the male pill and its power to 'liberate' men from the feminist yoke? Ask yourself - will a male contraceptive pill bring about changes in behaviour as radical as did the female version in the 1960's? I can only see it further encouraging casual sex, and lack of committment from men, even more than did the female pill. Thus, rather than transforming the situation of men, I see it only further opening up the free sexual market, and thus intensifying the feminist backlash. Together with a couple of the other new technologies I will discuss in the next couple of weeks, we can say - fourth wave of feminism, here we come.
I would end by stating that those who think that a male pill will be something revolutionary and liberating for men are deluded about the true cause and effect relationship between the original pill and women's 'liberation'. However, I have to admit that Lionel Tiger is a man who patently does understand that relationship, possibly more than any other human being alive. Yet in his classic work, The Decline of Males, he clearly intimates that he believes a male contraceptive pill to be vitally important for men. Thus, I have the uncomfortable feeling that I am missing something really glaring and fundamental here. If you can spell out just what this is, please do so in a comment underneath.
The other four technologies I intend to discuss in the next couple of weeks are : 3D Hologram/Virtual Reality Porn/Sex Bots ; Mind Reading Scanners ; Life-extension/anti-aging, beauty and rejuvenation therapy ; 'Female Viagra'.
By the way, suggestions are still welcome for my forthcoming list of the greatest ever anti-feminist music videos.