Equality Redux, by Novaseeker

Novaseeker may not be one of my original inspirations, but he's definetly an asset to hang on to once discovered. His realism and sensibility are hard to match, and the fact that he can put MRA in a religious perspective is a plus (Most of what I see is from Atheists or those who just avoid a religious context, that is, how to fight for Men's rights when you come from a white-knighting, collaborationist church). One of his few weaknesses is that he can be too pessimistic of the future. This piece itself speaks to me, there's no new content for myself, but it connects dots and puts things into words I had trouble with. Without further intro, I present Novaseeker's "Equality Redux"

This is a post I made on my blog several months ago, which I am resurrecting because it may be of interest to readers here.



Equality.

We often hear from feminists and their supporters that this is the goal of the feminist movement: true, full equality between males and females, and full freedom for all, in all walks of life. While I do not doubt that some of the Marxist radicals of the 60s and 70s honestly believed that feminism was aimed at bringing about equality for all, clearly feminism-in-fact — that is feminism as it has developed over the past few decades — has neither brought about, nor been terribly focused on, equality.

Oh? How can you say that? Haven’t women made great “gains” over the past few decades? Surely this brings about more equality?

It’s true that women have made gains in educational access and the workforce. But even these gains are quite revealing, in terms of new inequalities that feminism has instituted:

Women outnumbering men in college admissions and graduations, based on girls outperforming boys in elementary and secondary schools
Women having parity or majorities in all academic disciplines other than the STEM subjects, a disparity which is now the focus of measures to adjust it, while areas of female advantage and, in fact, domination, are ignored
Women virtually always obtaining custody of children in divorces, even in cases where their husbands have been the primary care-giver
Numerous fields being completely female-dominated (nursing, psychology, social work, primary and secondary education, numerous academic disciplines), with feminism not expressing any interest in adjusting such inequalities
And that leaves aside the substantial inequalities around reproduction that effectively give women totalitarian power over the means of reproduction, sidelining men as having only the decision as to whether to contribute sperm — so far, yet that right may itself be eradicated at some future point, in the interests of women and society, under some predictions.

What happened here? Why did feminism not succeed in its utopian goal of achieving “equality” between men and women?

The issue was that academic and radical activist feminism had to, at some point, come to terms with the concerns of women as a whole — and women as a whole had largely different interests from the academic and radical activist feminists. While the radicals and the academics sometimes talked about getting rid of female privilege (saying things such as “a pedestal is a small space”), this was never taken seriously by women as a whole, because the wider world of women had no interest whatsoever in shedding female privileges. Why would they? As Chinweizu points out in “Anatomy of Female Power”, these privileges and ideas were the ones that helped women control men behind the mask of patriarchal power and privilege. So, in fact, women as a group took a “cafeteria” approach to what feminism offered — taking what they wanted, and resisting what they did not want.

In effect, this meant that women accepted the gains women made in the areas of educational access, workforce presence and earning capacity, sexual freedom, reproductive power and so on — while resisting, tooth and nail, the abolition of any of the traditional female privileges (courtship and dating privilege, sexual power, military draft exemption, day to day deference, general conceptions of women being more moral, upstanding, empathetic, kind and so on, privileges around children). So, in effect, what happened was that the feminist leaders learned that women, as a whole, were interested in advances for women (as were the feminist radicals), but were not interested at all in giving up their traditional privileges. And so, in order to remain politically relevant for women, feminism largely confined itself, beginning in the 80s, to advancing the interests of women, rather than even attempting to achieve actual equality between men and women.

Because of that, we see the women’s groups thoroughly disinterested in the advantages women have over men outlined above. Where women are ahead, feminism defends the status quo, while where women are behind, feminism demands changes to ensure parity or better for women. The end result is that women will have parity in some fields, and domination in others … while men will have at best parity, and in many areas relegation to minority status. This is not only the case on the university level. It’s also happening in the workforce and the society in general. Women choose the fields they wish to focus on, and then they tend to dominate them. Men are increasingly relegated to the kinds of work women do not want to do — work that is either physically demanding, dirty and dangerous, or involves less life flexibility or longer working hours. And as between what was, prior to second wave feminism, the male sphere and the female sphere — women have consolidated their stranglehold over the female sphere while aggressively colonizing the male sphere … again leaving men with no space of their own, while reserving for women a huge space where their power is absolute.

In effect, one can say that when feminists speak of “equality” what they mean is equality in what was previously the male space. The female space was, by contrast, shored up by laws supported by feminism — laws covering the areas of marriage, divorce, child custody, child support, sexual harassment, and even domestic violence and rape, have all been altered in ways that decisively shift the power balance in any area relating to relationships, sex, marriage and children to women in a very substantial way. Equality was not the goal for the female space, but only for the male one. The female space, and female hegemony over it, was reinforced and substantially buttressed by feminist legislation, whereas the previously male space has been aggressively colonized, and it remains a key goal of feminists today to take over the highest echelons of power in the previously male space — again leaving men with nothing, no place where their power even comes close to the kind of total power women have over the female space.

Women may object, saying that they would be happy to cede a good amount of control over the female space to men in the name of equality, but this rings false. Even leaving aside the more controversial areas of rape and domestic violence law, family law indicates that this is simply not the case. There have been numerous cases noted by observers where a breadwinner mother and a stay at home father have divorced, yet the mother still insisted on mother custody, and succeeded in obtaining it in court. Even in cases where men are actually providing the main child care effort, courts, backed by feminist-inspired laws, award custody to mothers — ensuring that the power of women over children and divorce is absolute in nature.

This is hardly equality.

In fact, it’s female supremacy over all places where men and women interact relationally, combined with female colonization of the previously male space. It isn’t equality in any reasonable construction of the word, but an absolute power gain for women, at the expense of men, who are to be left with no space of their own, and a relegation to second class status in the female space as well.

In closing, I’ll note that it’s quite telling how this overall trend manifests itself in contemporary culture. Some of my readers may recall that feminists spent a lot of time and energy in the 80s and 90s eliminating male-only spaces, claiming the exclusion of women was discriminatory. Well, things in our species have a way of coming full circle. The recent trend of women’s only hotel floors — the creation of the type of sex-specific spaces that feminists so recently dismantled, when men were the “permitted” sex — almost perfectly demonstrates how feminism, and women more generally, are totally uninterested (in fairness, at least one feminist objected to these arrangements, but most women do not) in equality or exclusions, when men are the ones who are excluded or disadvantaged. Rather to the contrary, the movement today is simply about empowering women full stop, and if men suffer as a result of that, men be damned.

Posted at The Spearhead

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/12/05/equality-redux/

Happy Thanksgiving!

To everyone who celebrates it, and even those who don't (in which case, I hope you at least have an above average day).

To tell the truth, I've never really like the blog-reading aspect of holidays. Why? Because like this post, most posters are out doing their thing, which is fine, but it is really boring when everyone does it on the same day. No new news, no new discussions, more or less all the new posts merely wish "Happy/Merry ".

I suppose I am selfish, I love reading everyone else's pieces... at least those that are in the least bit coherent (this cuts out almost all pro-feminism posts), but I don't in particularly enjoy writing down things.

Part of it is because if most of what I want to write is what I just read, because it's brilliant, or it makes sense, or maybe it can help someone in some way.

The other part is because I'm driven mad by repetition. How is this repetiton? Well, I already KNOW what I'm going to write, so when I'm writing it, and necessarily RE-writing it, that's a lot of repetition. Even twice is quite a bit for me. If I hear a story or funny joke, I can repeat it once, but if someone's walking into the room just as it ends, I'm NOT the one telling them that same story or joke. Just my personality I guess, that doesn't mean it is insurmountable though.

I'm finding this to be good writing exercise though, not to say I'm a bad writer, but I'm needing less and less revision as I continue, which can only be good. From here on, I think I'll aim at posting every Saturday.

Which reminds me, the reason I started this blog, even though I've been reading MRA/MGTOW blogs for a long time now, is because of a blog named "What Men are saying about Women"
The author was at the time concerned with little exposure or growth in similar blogs. He understood he had many readers, but none of them would then spread the message. He ran a rally for some of his readers to start blogs of their own, and only one or two answered. I can't find this post, because Christian J. is the opposite of me. I do a post every 30 days, he does 30 posts a day (or did for a while, anyway, and I'm going to boost my number). In case you are wondering, or your name is Christian J. I started one because of that post, but didn't reply. I don't know why I didn't.

The hierarchy of MRA "action" for me goes like this.

Doing absolutely nothing -> Only reading the ideas -> Reposting the ideas (AKA, whining to those who actually act) -> organizing actions -> carrying out said actions.

I've seen some transcendence in the past year. I believe Counter-feminist went from just being an influential blogger to actually organizing to save his fellow man, ala Kevin Driscoll

I've also seen some bloggers go "ghost". I don't know if they still read or if they are just doing "nothing" related. Some still post on other blogs, but a lot less than when they ran their own blogs. I look forward to when I begin working into actual actions, words can be powerful and encourage action, but I can't really feel I've been the change I seek in this world (citing Ghandi on that one) unless I actually do something. When will that be? Good question. All actions need strategies, and all strategies deserve plans. I'm planning now so I'm not actually HARMING my own cause.

Well, as said earlier, Happy Thanksgiving, I understand there will be others who will rather read in their off time than be missing all day. Don't get me wrong, I have plans, but not for every minute tomorrow (today).

On the Importance of Firebrands

I believe I actually wrote this several weeks ago in Markymark's Thoughts, in response to some of Christopher in Oregon's comments, alongside some comments that he may be scaring away valuable allies from our side. Well, any good strategist can see the benefits of all his members/contributors/allies, and I think that we should at least acknowledge the good. I would've posted this earlier, but certain circumstances prevented it from happening.

--------

I think it's time I commented on Chris.

"The mere presence of heroes can break the chains of destiny" -forgot who said it.

I don't disagree with Chris, I also have my differences in opinion with him, however, if he is who I have observed him to be, he won't care either way.

As you will note, Chris writes and comments a bit more "polarized", some would call it radical, but his accessions appear to come from his own heart/mind, if they WERE based on pure anger, there would be few crannies where his alleged anger's persuasion wouldn't influence. As such, I have seen a couple to a few areas in which he is unparticipated to the extremity of "hatred of women" or any other controlling viewpoint.

However, don't let that fool you, he is a firebrand, some of his words can burn. Some of the more "moderate" in our ranks would see him as overdoing it.

Any movement needs its firebrands though, and I believe Chris to be one of the stronger. One of his qualities is the fact that he hasn't "burned himself out", thus he is not consumed with all-controlling hatred. The reason (I view) that feminists can go on for years hating men is because they have constant repetition from others, and even hypnotic effects from "classrooms" to change who they even are. That and I suppose most Women are predisposed to holding onto every grudge, whereas Men tend to let go easier.

What if Chris isn't in "the movement", you say? We are all in the movement, even those not reading this, never been to MarkyMark's Blog, or even heard of anti-feminism. Your futures intersect into the sphere of the ongoing and upcoming battles ahead, even the MGTOWs and Ghosts who've taken the greatest of care removing themselves from the system. They've done their part, and continue to do A part in this world against feminism whether they see, notice, or want to or not. If you don't have a plan, assuredly you will be in someone else's plan.

Chris' part is fairly natural to him, he educates and influences. The more moderate who would never dream of saying such things subtly get a bit more shifted across our side of the line. It's very subtle because even if they are opposed to such descriptions, they now are more familiar with them, they are no longer alien, and maybe, just maybe, they are a little more acceptable.

Another aspect would be that a lot of people, even on our side, don't like being on the "extreme". Even if your view is currently "moderate", imagine if you lived in an alternate world where most things are the same, but the most extreme our side would get is what qualifies for "moderate" here. They would feel that "maybe I could be wrong, I AM being as far from the opposite side as possible, maybe I should give in MORE", not so much for their opponent, but for themselves, uncompromising behavior broods feelings of self-viewing tyranny in some. They would never feel on the side of Justice. Some who don't like being on the edge, to be the most extreme of a group, no matter what they personally believe, can point the ACTUAL extreme to others and feel relieved. Relieved to themselves that being on the "inside" makes them more benign, more understanding, and yet they keep their position. Our side doesn't backtrack a step.

I have considered the possibility of firebrands scaring away newer recruits, and I have a lot to say on that, perhaps in the future.

I can sing many people's praises, and that would not mean I admire them most, nor should any care for my admiration, I am a mere Amateur and a contest of internet popularity only ends poorly, I will say one more thing of Chris, however.

He is like a Master Monk, a Martial Artist. They have very powerful blows that they pull right out of any stance. Yes, many new Martial Artists who come with strength already can put up nearly that kind of power, but they haven't learned how to without exhausting themselves. The Master understands the need to simultaneously relax and yet be alert, even in the middle of a fight. It is unwise to completely tense up and stay that way until the end, you lose all your energy and you did nothing with it. I see Chris' ability to constantly vigil, and effortlessly respond, yet keep his own distance as a clear indicator of a fortified individual and personality.

I think we all have a part in this, even on the local level, but sometimes; even the little things can spread to affect the global atmosphere.

As I said, I don't agree with Christopher from Oregon on everything, and we even differ on KEY ISSUES, in some spheres, he may even be my opponent. But that is what makes us individuals, our differences, and to roll with the energy from your allies (even if they are only allies in just a few spheres) is a Grand Strategy for Success.

---------

I believe that even if we were all opposed to Chris (and I'm not), he wouldn't go away, nor stop what he's doing. Chris isn't the only one either, we have some real power in some of our more extreme members who are defending our positions and changing minds in ways and places we haven't seen. I'd like to personally thank all who bring our side together, and vanguish our foes. Whether we like it or not, they're there, and they do what they do, if you knew you were on the right side, you wouldn't change your position just because of a fellow member's more aggressive stance, would you?

Last day of August

August has come and gone, and with it some of my more time-restricting activities, I'll have more time to write now, but most of it will be spent reading, absorbing, and planning.

So much has happened I didn't get to comment on, nor does it feel all the proper to when so much has been explored already. It'd be "beating a dead horse".

So be on the lookout for my September posts on new things, and the most basic things we can't ignore!

-Amateur Strategist.

Feminism Vs. Men's Rights

It was my pleasure to catch this at Counter-Feminist a few days ago (I think), Anyway, it just goes to show how experienced our veteran thinkers are. The Logic is so simple, yet indesputable, I hope to come up with thesis(es) half as good as this in the future.

I believe it's important for all of us to realize first and foremost our purpose, and our reason for being. Afterall, to use an analogy, the best way to bring down a tree is not to cut the branches from the top down, but to strike it's core, it's trunk. I think our core-reasoning is that trunk, and the more we realize how necessary our actions are, the more powerful and strengthened the rest of our efforts will become.

Whether MRA, FRA, or MGTOW, or even PUA we can all see that our rights are important to us, and we'll need to act, to argue, to vote, to FIGHT to keep our rights.

EDIT: This video is originally made by Factory, of "Hunting for Archtypes" fame, which was then watched (repeatedly) by Counter-Feminist and then transposed into text on Counter-Feminist's Blog. I'm just spreading the word, as the basics are always the most important.

Learn something everyday

Hello, friends, today I was reading Markymark's comments (that is, comments from others in MM's posts), when a post by Novaseeker struck me.

Novaseeker said...
Groups like the Amish and the Hasidim work precisely because they are small, isolated groups who do not seek to change the broader culture (because they can't), but rather simply isolate themselves from it to the greatest degree possible.

I'm not saying that doesn't work for the people who are in those groups, but it needs to be remembered that (1) these groups have very old traditions (which is much of what gives them their power within their groups), and are not trying to break new ground in the current setting and (2) while this may work for a limited number of men/women, it will not change the culture as a whole at all.

So, to be honest, while that may be a solution for some men and women, it is simply that -- a personal solution. It is, in effect, a way of devising a coping mechanism for avoiding the current system, rather than trying to find a way to fix the system -- precisely because it seeks to live in isolation from the system. In that respect, it is like any of the other strategies that men are adopting to adapt to the current system, which these guys all basically dislike for varying reasons: (1) PUAs who work the system for personal gain, (2) ghosts who avoid the system and go their own way, (3) MGTOWs who may have relations with women but try to do so in a way that is independent of the system and (4) your own proposed isolated community idea, which also seeks to live outside of the system.

All of these are legitimate responses, but none of them is an adequate criticism of MRA/FRA. MRA/FRA is actually trying to engage and change the system, whereas the rest of these are coping strategies for dealing with a system which is admittedly bad for men (and women).
07 July, 2009 10:35

It reminds me precisely about one's main goal; is it to actually CHANGE the way things are? Or do you believe such doing is folly and suicidal, and you want to avoid the fallout? More comment on my personal view on this later.

Brilliant post by Black Sea

As a quick intro, I was reading at Whiskey place (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3893665144141962944&postID=4615454965905533997) and a dispute began about JUST HOW MANY Sex partners does the average young Woman have these days? Well, Black Sea breaks it down and gives some good points: (Mostly I want to reference this later, and hate losing posts to obscurity)

Black Sea said...
I'm not nearly as statistically inclined as many of the commenters here, so my observations will have to be more hypothetical or anecdotally driven, but this topic does interest me.

From what I can gather, for middle class, suburban reared, university educated women with some career orientation and -- more importantly -- the income to support a single's lifestyle, "normal" expectations would involve becoming sexually active in high school, having an active sexual/romantic life through most of ones 20s, then getting serious about settling down around the age of 28. Bear in mind, that doesn't mean getting married at 28, but rather, making the psychological transition toward getting married, so that one might actual snag a suitable fiance before the dreaded three-oh. And this is for the more realistic ones, who realize that their market value will diminish rapidly in their 30s.

Let's assume that such a woman first has sex at age 15, that she remains monogamous in every long-term relationship that she considers serious, and that in her own mind, she's leading the normal life of an educated young woman in your typical metropolitan area.

Let's further imagine that she is not particularly promiscuous, and between the ages of 15 and 28 she has four "serious", long-term relationships, which average a duration of 1.5 years each. Thus, within those serious relationship phases, she has four sex partners, over a total of six years. The end of each of these relationships constitutes something of a psychological trauma for her, since she was seriously bonded to each of these boys or men, even if she is ultimately the one who initiated the break up.

Let's then consider her seven "off-years" during which she may be dating guys for a couple of months here, a couple of weeks there, and a few one night stands in between. At other times, and for considerable periods, she is more or less celibate. Let's say that during the off years, she averages only three sex partners per year. Hardly "sluttish" by today's standards. Indeed, almost virginal as compared to "Sex and the City."

Neverthless, such a woman will, by the age of 28, have accumulated a total of 25 sex partners, and will have undergone at least four difficult, emotionally traumatic break-ups (she may have become pretty attached to several of the two or three month boyfriends as well). Furthermore, there could well be a pregnancy (aborted) and an STD thrown into the mix.

So now she's 28. After all of this, she's going to form a durable, powerful bond with a normal man, not an actor or professional athlete, or multi-millionaire, or whatever? And that bond is going to sustain her and her spouse through 40 to 50 years of marriage?

Almost all of her experience, from childhood really, has taught her that relationships are fragile and temporary, that men, or at least exciting, attractive men, are not to be trusted, and that when lovers quarrel, or grow bored, or meet someone newer and more interesting, the relationship ends. This has been her life since she was a teenager.

We rarely consider the extent to which the "rules of the game" are laid down for us between the ages of 12 and 25, when we really come into self-awareness, and ultimately, into adulthood. One of the first things I observed when I began dating in high school was that girls from divorced homes were somehow different, both quicker to go to bed and, ultimately, angrier toward men.

Such a woman as I've imagined above (even if not a child of divorce) is going to have to overcome and awful lot of engrained expectations to make a durable marriage with anyone, and the resultant divorces and prolonged, or lifelong, unmarried status of many can hardly be surprising.

Eventually, even romantics grow wary of hot stoves.
June 28, 2009 10:40 AM

Truly good stuff, if I may comment, it seems to put things in perspective for even the "best case scenario" when it comes to most American Women (really, it might as well be "all" with those odds). With the spread of STDs and the whole psychological support (or in this case enfeeblement) for long term relationships, well... How is this going to work?