Feminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women. This is its entire raison d'etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry - 'armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality'.
And legislate morality these pioneering feminists quickly did, even before they had won the vote. That is, they successfully lobbied for restrictions on prostitution, a rise in the age of consent from 12 to 16, or even 18, and the closing down of saloons where their husbands might mix freely with unattached young women.
To feminists, and indeed, to the vast majority of the female sex who give feminists the power to speak on their behalf, morality is little more than ensuring the reproductive and sexual interests of a post peak fertility female who relies on heavy parental investment from a committed male partner. The extent of female desire for involvement in the political process is directly proportionate to the threat that women feel in a free sexual market.
Feminists tend to dislike Darwinism almost as much as the evangelical creationist does. Yet you could pretty much feed into a computer equipped with a Darwinian algorithm the reproductive needs of a 9 month labouring female simian in a sexual jungle and you would be pretty much guaranteed to find the computer would accurately predict EVERYTHING that a feminist finds 'objectifying, exploitative, abusive etc.etc'.
The infamous Amanda (see posts below) takes umbrage at my description of her blog as a piece of sexual trade unionism. In fact every single one of her posts bears some relation to sex and reproduction seen through the eyes and vested interests of an unattractive post peak-fertility female. Even the title of her blog gives the game away.
If feminists like Amanda could point to just one cause of theirs that DECREASES their own individual sexual power (relative, for example, to that of a beautiful 18 year old) instead of INCREASING it, then I'd swallow my words. Anyone who thinks that will ever happen though, has probably never read the history of feminism, and certainly not its first or second wave origins.
A comment was posted below my 'All Feminists are Rapists' YouTube video the other day which made a very intelligent point that I've been meaning to discuss for some time :
"Traditional" right-wing religious women are EXACTLY the same as the left-wing feminists are. They just use different mumbo-jumbo to achieve the? same ends. For example, both 'radical' & 'traditional' women oppose any kind of sexual competition e.g. prostitution, pornography, etc. Feminists blabber about 'patriarchy, equality...' while right wing fems quote bible verses. Same b.s. different packaging.
And this, in essence, is the difference between somebody like Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton.
..And this is why, in my honest opinion, the men's movement will likely never be more than a damage limitation exercise in terms of the steady erosion of men's rights. Men have as many conceptions of justice and of what is important in life as there are stars in the sky. Women tend to have only one. And this is the case whether they are right or left, religious or atheist, conservative or 'progressive'. Men debate the ends whereas women only ever dispute the means.
It is also why I am so sceptical of 'sympathetic feminists' or even, unfortunately, women per se joining our movement. Invariably, they are confused feminists, dimly aware that most women in their position are unhappier than ever, coupled with a vague awareness that this requires not more economic and political independence for women, but rather a simple closure of the free sexual market and a return to traditionalism. We, the men's rights movement, are simply a means to achieving that selfish conservative end.
I don't want to close on such pessimistic reflections. I still have faith that the ever increasing speed of technological progress will eventually render the sexual conflict between men and women obsolete and irrelevant. Feminism has always been about playing catch-up in the quest to stop new technology from widening the free sexual market and putting the sexual interests of unattractive women at risk. As progress speeds up, one must hope that this will become increasingly impossible. To take one example. Anyone with eyes and ears will have noticed a marked 'return to puritanism' over the last year alone with regard to the media witchunts of 'cheating' husbands such as Tiger Woods. Quite possibly, even probably, within a couple of decades, the majority of people, at least young people, will be aware that they can be expected to live to remarkably long ages. When people can expect to live to be 150, 200, perhaps much longer than that, what becomes of the idea of marriage and life-long commitment? Would we simply see a formalized acceptance of the mating patterns we are increasingly seeing today - a woman demands exclusive commitment from a man for a decade or two, then dumps him and takes the kids and a massive divorce pay off to another male? Hopefully not. At least, in the long run, even women might see that their primitive Savannah sexual codes will become increasingly irrelevant and out of place in an unimaginably altered high-tech future. Perhaps even they will demand, through genetic or pharmaceutical intervention if necessary, the God given ability of a man to partake in sexual pleasure without demanding that the object of desire becomes his exclusive instrumentalized property for life.
Useful Links and Resources :