God save women from other women
The politics of “woman, poor me my body” is nothing more than the power playing politico’s gathering together their constituency. They use strategies many minority groups use to gain advantage over the majority. Exampled by the Gay Marriage and aboriginal activities of recent times here. The difference is that woman and men are approximately equal in number and women can not be seen as a minority. Their argument is they are not equal to men, as if that matters. People are not made up of equals, every one has something about them that is better (different) than the majority of the world. Yet, in arguing for “equality” their advantages are ignored.
Recently we saw women protest “gender inequality” throughout the western world. As ridiculous as they may have looked and behaved, all the carrying-on served a vital purpose: Like a religious ritual, it enabled women to think they are doing something important, something to improve their lives. You see, first feminism simplifies the complexity of women’s lives. The problem, we are to believe, is not that women are torn by conflicting values and interests. Rather, women are oppressed by men, who are creeps besides. Then feminism tells women to join together with other women to resist their oppressor.
This creates opportunities for all sorts of emotionally charged affairs, from the cheering of angry slogans to the shaming of famous men (who may or may not deserve it) in magazines and on television. It is fascinating to notice that such phenomena, more and more, serve as substitutes for the inner psychological drama that women used to experience in the form of romantic relationships. Now that men and women no longer know how to make relationships work, women use feminism not only to “explain” their condition; feminism becomes a de facto husband. You are wedded to the doctrine, with all its emotional highs and lows. It’s you two against the world—that is, against men. By this means women’s passions are powerfully engaged. Their strange world seems to make sense; they understand their misery and what to do about it. They even have a sense of solidarity with other women, which is not found in the workplace, where, alas, women as a whole struggle to keep up with the ablest men.
The point I am trying to make is that feminism needs to be understood from a psychological point of view. We need to understand why feminism makes sense to feminists. It is an ideology, and that means it does not have to be rational. Thus, it does not matter how many times the wage gap myth and the rape culture myth are debunked. Feminism is still highly seductive. For, while understanding the complexity of your situation would entail recognizing the need to make certain difficult trade-offs, that anguished endeavor can be ignored by simply believing all of your woes are due to men. Now, moreover, women can exercise the hysteria that, as the old stereotype about women suggests, is so characteristic of the fair sex. The psychologist Robert Bartholomew has written that
throughout history, groups of people in cohesive social units have suddenly fallen ill or exhibited strange behaviors, from headaches and fainting spells to twitching, shaking and trance states. But whether it’s an outbreak of spirit possession at a shoe factory in Malaysia, a collapsing marching band at a school gala in England or a twitching epidemic in a Louisiana high school, the pattern is invariably the same. Most, and often all of those affected, are females. In fact, of the 2,000+ cases in my files which date back to 1566, this pattern holds true over ninety-nine percent of the time.
Nothing annoys feminists more than equating women with hysteria; still, women’s behavior certainly merits the description, especially the behavior of feminists. In how they arise, the witch hunts we have seen in the media lately are not so different from the hysterias Bartholomew references. It is evident that women, with their lack of independent judgment, are highly susceptible to the feelings and beliefs of other women. This is why where a man simply makes a decision for himself, a woman typically turns to another woman: her mother, or her sister, or her girlfriend, or whomever. It is necessary to know what so-and-so thinks or would do. This is also why it takes just one upset woman to set in motion a vast chain of hysterical events. Hence women unintentionally cause one another (not to mention men) a great deal of trouble. It happens constantly, under the influence of another woman, that a woman who feels merely ambivalent about a man, or feels some regret about sleeping with him, suddenly comes to believe that she has been “used” or “assaulted.” Behind a woman’s bad decision how often there is another woman.
Far more than men, women, with their maternal endowment, are by nature very interested in other people’s business, and their frequent mischievous gossip and opinions regarding matters that do not concern them represent a profound need for emotional intrigue of some sort. Here truth and justice are much less important to women than the intrigue itself, which requires occasions, as it were. Recently a woman said to me about a woman we know who had fallen sick: “I have to go see her; I haven’t seen her since she’s looked like that.” It was immediately plain to me that that was a woman’s thing to say. Indeed, it is quite unthinkable that any man would have made such a remark. The women journalists who wrote about Aziz Ansari’s bad date with a typical neurotic and oblivious millennial woman left many of us men scratching our heads. Is that pettiness and humiliation really news? To women, yes. The American media and America’s universities have taken an hysterical turn. Given the overwhelming influence of women, that was bound to happen. For the most part, intellectual women are soap operas at bottom.
The greatest evil for women is that the more they buy into feminism, the more miserable they become. Take, for example, hookup culture, which is the culmination of the sexual revolution. Of course, women have much more to lose in it than men do. Besides getting pregnant, a woman may be raped, or raped and murdered. Although many feminists are quite mad in their conception of male sexuality—as if it were inherently criminal—it remains true that the anything-goes approach to sex that prevails today is a much riskier business for women, both biologically and in regard to safety. Now in a culture in which casual sex and promiscuity are norms, women are sure to experience a fair number of sexual encounters that are awkward, uncomfortable, or regrettable. Feminism, however, makes women believe they must be the same as men. Therefore, although hookup culture is even more harmful to women than it is to men, women must still accept it in the name of “equality,” because to go back to the old days of making men commit (whether in the form of marriage or at least in a relationship) in order to sleep with you would be to enact a “double standard.”
We can see here just how pernicious feminism is, with its insistence that the sexes be the same. The so-called double standard obscures women’s greater sexual power. Withholding sex makes women much more powerful, just as it makes the culture stable. If women are not having sex outside of marriage, or at least outside of relationships, then men are not having such sex with women, either; it all depends on whether women will yield to men’s advances. Making men commit in order to get sex means that much fewer men will use women for sex. It also means women will not be sleeping with men whom they hardly know, a practice that would significantly decrease the number of dangerous sexual encounters, and also those that women later regret for whatever reason. If sex outside of marriage were still shunned, then families would be more stable, since the scarcity of sex would compel couples to stay together. All this is to say that it would be the best thing for women to return to the old conventions about sex and dating. It used to be taken for granted that women, in keeping with their greater sexual power, have a greater responsibility to be responsible—that is, conventional—when it comes to sex. A return to that former role is highly unlikely, however, because owing to feminism the good sense of the past has been turned into lies in the service of the oppression story.
Indeed, that is a big part of what women (and men) now get from their “education.” Every year thousands of young women go off to college, where their naive and passionate young minds will be readily corrupted by older women. Goodwill, affection, and gratitude are replaced by envy, resentment, and distrust. A false and vindictive perspective is inculcated by women who appear successful and who embody young women’s own aspirations. What misery those feminists wreak! We might say, appropriating an old maxim, that woman is a wolf to woman. “Follow me—I can help you,” says the feminist. But all the while she is her own burden. The unhappier women become, the more they turn to feminism, which leaves them unhappier still. God save women from other women.