The post about the Gail Dines talk Pornland got the most hits on this blog ever. Not sure who linked it but the traffic keeps coming. I forgot that feminism is the best topic to draw traffic. It’s typically for two reasons: first, incels and other men who have had, er, “issues” with women love to bash feminists. Second, of course feminists themselves can’t help but express their masochism by shouting, “wow, just wow” at anyone who criticizes feminism.
A previous post suggested that SJWism is caused by child abuse and high levels of neuroticism. Anecdotal evidence for this is everywhere. Eventually, SJWs will talk about their childhood abuse. Although Counter Currents never gives me credit, I’m fairly certain their softball interview with Derrick Jensen was influenced by yours truly in my pre-banned persona. Jensen’s radfem-ism is clearly and obviously influenced by his sexually and physically abusive father.
For female feminists, it’s slightly more complicated. First, use the typical divide between liberal feminism and radical feminism. I’m only going to discuss White Feminism because the feminism of non-whites, at least in the West, is really just non-whitism. The sexual/gender issues always take a back seat to the racial issues. In America, certainly, all non-white feminism is basically a way to attack white women directly and white men indirectly.
White Liberal Feminism
Liberal feminism isn’t even really a thing. There is nothing liberal, nor particularly feminist, about it. It’s what manosphere writer Rollo Thomassi calls “the feminine imperative.” There’s nothing ideological here, it is simply females acting in their own interests according to their own impulses.
So liberal feminism is all about “not judging” people. This is simply women’s instinct combined with their high neuroticism. Women have a herd instinct, a terrible fear of exclusion, and high neuroticism. So simple statements of disapproval are experienced with high negativity and it triggers the fear of exclusion, an evolutionary death sentence.
Everything else about liberal feminism is just whatever the particular woman desires at the time. If she’s a stripper, then her liberal feminism is all about social approval of prostitution and attacks on the “SWERFs” – sex worker exclusionary feminists. If she’s into video games, her liberal feminism is all about the mean boys who play video games.
If she’s fat, then her liberal feminism is all about opposing “fat phobia.” If she’s ugly, her liberal feminism is all about “socially constructed beauty standards.” If she’s promiscuous, her liberal feminism is all about stopping “slut shaming.”
Virtually all hetersexual feminists, of all kinds, go absolutely crazy at the idea that men will “judge” their sexual history. This is especially true of very promiscuous women, but even girls who aren’t particularly promiscuous – even virgins – absolutely hate and despise the idea of a man preferring a virgin or rejecting a promiscuous woman. Simply speaking, they want to keep their options open and they want to “trade up” if they can.
You can see this just in the way they talk. A man who “judges” a woman’s past is “insecure.” Many say that virginity itself is a misogynistic social construct.
You read the often repeated line that “women who sleep around are sluts, but men who sleep around are studs.”
This is true, in a sense, but in the opposite sense that feminists typically mean it. It is women who judge promiscuous men as “studs.” Women do not want a virgin man, they want a man who has already been proven to be desirable to women, a man who has attained “social proof” of his desirability. This is because women don’t really know what they want in a man, have a hard time judging a man’s attractiveness – because most men are not particularly attractive in general.
There’s an old joke men used to make, “a fat girl is like a moped. They are fun to ride but you wouldn’t want your friends seeing you riding one.”
This sentiment is even more applicable to women than men. The social desirability of their sexual partner is almost more important than anything inherent in the man himself.
Radical (((White))) Feminism
Unlike liberal feminism, radical feminism actually is an ideology and has some substance to it. Radical feminism is first of all a form of cultural Marxism. That is, it takes the class analysis of Marxism, but instead of your class being defined by your relationship to the means of production, your class is defined by your sex. Therefore, women as a class are oppressed by men as a class.
From that axiom, any social differences between women and men are deemed “oppression.” Social privileges that women enjoy are either ret-conned into “oppression” or are ascribed to privileges women get for complying with patriarchy.
There is some substance here, however. One trope you will read is that a matriarchal society is preferable because a woman and her children will not be taken care of by the father, but instead by her brothers. Fathers are simply sperm donors. It’s true that such matriarchal societies have existed, but they never evolved past the most primitive aspect of civilization. As soon as humans understood paternity, men took measures to ensure the survival of their Y chromosome.
The patriarchal societies immediately outpaced the matriarchal societies on every measure. Even Derrick Jensen might agree: patriarchy is civilization. Jensen defines civilization as the exploitation of nature to make resources; this implies property, and the most valuable property of all is women.
Amusingly, I read one radical feminist suggesting that the most controversial aspect of radical feminism is the notion that women don’t need men. She said – without a shred of self-awareness, that given adequate resources mothers don’t need a father to raise children.
Notice the passive voice, given adequate resources. The question is, given by whom?
Well, by faceless, nameless “men” – “society” – who will provide the adequate resources for the woman and the child, of course, selflessly, taking no note of his own genetic or social interests!
Hilariously, one radfem even said that men have historically conspired to keep women ignorant of the trades. Men just refuse to teach women how to mix concrete, build houses, and engage in mining and metalworking, because these are secrets that men want to keep to themselves so women will need them.
I say there is substance to radical feminism, but it’s not a particularly coherent ideology. Frankly, I guess the only part that is coherent is the Marxism, which is, of course, the product of a man.
Poor gals just can’t catch a break.
Who is attracted to radical feminism? It’s pretty obvious. There are sort of concentric circles. The inner circle is, of course, lesbians. The more outer circle are misandrists, heterosexual women who hate men. The next circle might be women who are physically or cognitively low on femininity. The next circle are women who have had abortions and are agitated by social disapproval. The outermost circle are liberal feminists who realized that their personal interests are better served by a collective than individually, and that the liberal feminist collective isn’t cohesive – it’s really more liberal than feminist.
All of this is driven by personal and collective inferiority and, on a more personal level, trauma. Sexual abuse, bad fathers – or no fathers – bad socialization with men as a result of not having brothers, misandrist mothers, etc.
You can see this so clearly by noting the exceptions to the rule.
Consider Christina Hoff Sommers. Attractive, intelligent, accomplished, married and a mother. She calls herself a “feminist” but her feminism mostly stops at making sure girls get an education and highly intelligent and driven women like her aren’t kept out of corporate jobs. Patriarchy – and capitalism – worked quite well for her.
Hard to find her biography online, but who wants to bet than Mrs. Sommers grew up in a two parent household, with a loving, caring father, and a mother that also was conventionally feminine?
Next, consider Camille Paglia. A lesbian, she even considers herself “transgendered.” She is what they might call a “soft butch.” Yet she goes on and on about her large, loving, Italian family. She has no animus against men – quite the contrary, she loves men, conventional masculinity and admires men’s civilization and their art.
She also idealizes the “strong women” of her family and Catholic culture. She points out that in a previous time she would have been a nun.
Clearly, no abuse in her background. A good, present father who did not abuse her.
Social Justice is driven by objective inferiority plus childhood sexual abuse. (Spandrell’s concept of “bio-leninism” fits here.)
Which makes it quite obvious why they are now pushing for “Queerness” and things like “Drag Queen Story Hour.” They need to groom the next generation of victims to replenish their ranks.
It’s really that simple.